Politics

(WASHINGTON) — Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas has spent much of this week defending the department’s newly established Disinformation Governance Board in response to Republican lawmakers’ concerns about partisan influence in federal law enforcement.

The board, according to DHS, was actually created to address privacy concerns that arise with disinformation campaigns when information is shared between departments as well as to ensure it’s done appropriately. But the Orwellian name and an admittedly clumsy rollout immediately raised eyebrows as well as ignited a pre-existing debate about free speech and partisanship — especially given the person tasked with leading the board’s activities.

“Given the complete lack of information about this new initiative and the potential serious consequences of a government entity identifying and responding to ‘disinformation,’ we have serious concerns about the activities of this new Board, particularly under Ms. Jankowicz’s leadership,” Mike Turner and John Katko, Republican leaders of the House Committee on Homeland Security, wrote in a letter to Mayorkas last week.

In a fact sheet released Monday, the department admits that “there has been confusion about the working group, its role, and its activities” and vows to work on building greater public trust.

That confusion over the board’s work stemmed from a comment Mayorkas made to Congress last week that it would be used to “more effectively combat” the threat of false information. DHS has now said the body will not be involved in managing department operations and Mayorkas said the group would “bring together the experts throughout our department to ensure that our ongoing work in combating disinformation is done in a way that does not infringe on free speech, a fundamental constitutional right embedded in the First Amendment, nor on the right of privacy or other civil rights and civil liberties.”

The White House on Friday pledged the board will operate in a “nonpartisan and apolitical manner.”

But Sen. Rand Paul, a Kentucky Republican, was not sold.

“I think you’ve got no idea what disinformation is, and I don’t think the government is capable of it,” he said during a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing.

The secretary pushed back on the assertion from Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., that the board will be the “truth police.”

“The Department of Homeland Security is not going to be the truth police,” Mayorkas said. “That is the farthest thing from the truth. We protect the security of the homeland.”

The GOP criticisms also center on Nina Jankowicz, the former Wilson Center fellow tapped to lead the board. Jankowicz, who is routinely outspoken on Twitter, has publicly criticized Republicans and sowed doubt about the accuracy of press reports critical of President Joe Biden’s son Hunter.

Jankowicz was quoted by the Associated Press in 2020 refuting a story about the discovery of new emails that reportedly linked Hunter Biden and a Ukrainian energy executive with the president.

“We should view it as a Trump campaign product,” Jankowicz told the AP that October.

She later suggested on Twitter that the emails were “part of an influence campaign.”

“Voters deserve that context, not a fairy tale about a laptop repair shop,” Jankowicz wrote.

The New York Times and Washington Post confirmed the authenticity of the emails related to Hunter Biden with the help of security experts in March. ABC News has not independently confirmed the veracity of the emails, which were first reported by the New York Post in an article that was flagged as disinformation on Twitter. The social media company demanded the tabloid delete the posts but eventually backed down when it refused.

The debate over the new board takes place against the backdrop of a long-standing divide over regulating speech, especially online. Fueled by libertarian beliefs in an unregulated public sphere, leaders on the right have championed figures like Elon Musk, whose recent acquisition of Twitter was met with skepticism and concern from those who believe social media companies have a duty to remove vitriolic harassment, disinformation and misinformation on their platforms.

“Your priority is setting up a board and hiring someone who has gone to TikTok to talk about stopping speech she doesn’t like, who has mocked voters of the last president, that has been your priority, and to say your priorities are misplaced is a dramatic understatement, and the time I think has come, Mr. Secretary, for you to resign,” Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., told Mayorkas.

Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., said Jankowicz has made “political statements” in the past that would disqualify her from holding the position on the board.

“I think it’s a terrible idea,” Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, said.

Mayorkas, for his part, pushed back, saying he didn’t know about the TikTok posts and, as secretary, he is ultimately responsible for what occurs at DHS. He also declined to say who hired Jankowicz but stressed she must do her job in a nonpartisan way.

John Cohen, the former acting intelligence chief at DHS who helped stand up the disinformation board and left the department last month, said the board simply addresses a communication issue within the department.

“It didn’t coordinate operational activities, it wasn’t governing intelligence operations, it had no input on how organizations collect intelligence or information,” Cohen, now an ABC News contributor, said. “It was simply intended to be a working group that would gather on an ad hoc basis to address matters of policy.”

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — U.S. officials on Thursday pushed back on a New York Times report that said the U.S. provided Ukraine intelligence that helped it target and kill Russian generals and other senior officers.

National Security Council spokesperson Adrienne Watson took exception to the story’s headline: “U.S. Intelligence Is Helping Ukraine Kill Russian Generals, Officials Say.”

“The headline of this story is misleading and the way it is framed is irresponsible. The United States provides battlefield intelligence to help the Ukrainians defend their country. We do not provide intelligence with the intent to kill Russian generals,” Watson said, drawing a semantic distinction, appearing to want to distance the U.S. from any direct involvement in an attack on Russian commanders.

A second U.S. official with knowledge of U.S. intelligence-sharing with Ukraine confirmed that the U.S. provides intelligence on movements of Russian units and command posts, but not on individual Russian military leaders.

“The U.S. is not providing intelligence on Russian generals,” the official told ABC News Wednesday evening.

A third official told ABC News the same: “That is not how we operate.”

Pentagon press secretary John Kirby offered clarifying remarks during a press briefing Thursday.

“The United States provides battlefield intelligence to help Ukrainians defend their country,” Kirby said. “We do not provide intelligence on the location of senior military leaders on the battlefield or participate in the targeting decisions of the Ukrainian military.”

The New York Times story originally cited American officials claiming U.S. intelligence “has helped Ukrainians target and kill many of the Russian generals who have died in action in the Ukraine war.”

Officials say it is correct, as reported by the Times, that the Ukrainians are able to combine what they learn from the U.S. with their own intelligence to then target Russian leaders. But they emphasized that the U.S. does not play a direct role in targeting individuals on the battlefield.

Other nations are also sharing intelligence with Ukraine, which has its own “robust” capabilities, according to Kirby.

“Ukraine combines information that we and other partners provide with the intelligence that they themselves are gathering on the battlefield, and then they make their own decisions, and they take their own actions,” Kirby said.

The Kremlin also responded to the article, saying its troops are aware of intelligence-assistance for Ukraine coming from the West.

“Our servicemen are well aware that the United States, the United Kingdom and NATO in general are providing intelligence and information about other parameters to the Ukrainian Armed Forces on a permanent basis. This is well known and, of course, together with the arms supply to Ukraine by the same countries and the alliance, all of those actions are not helping rapidly finalize the operation, although they cannot hinder the achievement of objectives set for the special military operation,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said at a press briefing Thursday.

Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense has claimed 12 Russian generals have been killed since the invasion, though U.S. officials have not confirmed this when asked.

One reason senior officers might be particularly vulnerable is due to the structure of Russia’s military.

“They do not delegate authority,” said Mick Mulroy, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East and ABC News contributor. “So, they are out giving orders directly to their forces.”

Unlike the U.S. military, Russia does not empower its non-commissioned and junior officers with the authority to make decisions on their own, according to Mulroy.

“It’s the only way to effectively fight in modern combined arms maneuver warfare,” he said. “The lack of delegation is another reason the Russian military is performing so poorly.”

Top American military leaders have publicly stated the U.S. is sharing intelligence to help Ukrainians in their fight against Russia’s invading forces.

“We have opened up the pipes,” Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told senators Tuesday. “There is a significant amount of intelligence flowing to the Ukraine from the United States.”

The officials ABC News spoke to could not say whether the U.S. has any hard rules in place against giving Ukraine intelligence on high-level leaders, including top Russian general Valery Gerasimov, who spent multiple days in the contested Donbas region last week. But according to Mulroy, there is nothing wrong in principle with helping Ukraine kill Russian generals.

“Targeting generals is fully lawful, targeting non-combatant civilians is not,” Mulroy said. “If Russian generals don’t want to be targeted, they should withdraw their forces and return to Russia.”

ABC News’ Molly Nagle contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Attorney Kathryn Kolbert has spent a majority of her career thinking about the after-effects on reproductive rights if the Supreme Court was to overturn Roe v. Wade. She believes prohibiting abortions will force some women to turn to unsafe practices to terminate pregnancies that will put their lives in danger.

“Women are crafty,” said Kolbert. “I’m not advocating that they break the law, but the reality is, as in the days before Roe, the underground market will operate.”

Kolbert is best known as one of the lawyers who argued and helped win the landmark 1992 abortion case Planned Parenthood vs. Casey. Now, a leaked draft opinion for the Supreme Court appears to indicate that the court is poised to fully overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Kolbert told ABC News’ podcast Start Here that if the ruling is overturned, so-called “trigger laws” will immediately go into effect to ban or prohibit abortions across half the country.

“The reality is that women in those 25 or 26 states will not be able to obtain the reproductive health care that they need,” said Kolbert. “The bottom line: Women will have to travel hundreds of miles, sometimes thousands of miles, to obtain reproductive health care. That’s what they did in the 1970s.”

If women cannot afford to travel to obtain proper reproductive care, Kolbert said that some women will take dangerous measures, either through unsafe surgical abortions or medical abortions, that could result in serious consequences.

“They’ll figure it out and there’s all kinds of ways they can do that. Internet access from doctors around the world, getting drugs from their friends… traveling across the border, and picking up the drugs, all kinds of ways,” said Kolbert.

Kolbert said that, although medical abortions, which is the use of different medications to terminate a pregnancy, are safe under medical supervision, there are still always risks that women can bleed more than expected. For those who obtain the drugs illegally, they’ll often be deterred from seeking follow up medical care when they need it.

“[A woman in Texas] was prosecuted for self-managing her abortion. They dropped those charges eventually, but [she] was dragged into court,” said Kolbert. “[Authorities] found out because she went to a hospital, because she was bleeding and wanted appropriate health care.”

Kolbert said another risk is women receiving “bad drugs.”

“For the most part, [medication is] safe when you get the right drug, but there’s unscrupulous people out in the world and that’s a risk,” said Kolbert. “But the reality is, even with the risks of medication… [For some women] being forced by the government to carry your pregnancy to term is unthinkable and they will do, as they did in the days before Roe, just about anything to terminate a pregnancy.”

The World Health Organization estimates that nearly 13% of annual maternal deaths can be attributed to unsafe abortions. The same study states that in developed regions, it is estimated that 30 women die for every 100,000 unsafe abortions.

For now, abortions are legal while the final Supreme Court decision remains pending. Kolbert said that there are three things people can do to help: donate money to abortion rights causes, get political and build “a badass social justice movement” because “change has never happened until there has been a cry for change.”

“The young people in our country really need to demand that their rights, their liberties that they’ve enjoyed their entire lifetimes, be respected,” said Kolbert. “It is not appropriate to tell women that they can’t make decisions about their lives. It is not appropriate to tell women that their bodies do not belong to themselves. We need to stand up and say, ‘No way.’”

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — After a year and a half at the podium, White House press secretary Jen Psaki is planning to leave the White House on May 13, and her current deputy, Karine Jean-Pierre, will be her replacement, President Joe Biden announced Thursday.

In a historic pick, Jean-Pierre will be the first Black, and first openly gay person to hold the position of White House press secretary.

“Karine not only brings the experience, talent and integrity needed for this difficult job, but she will continue to lead the way in communicating about the work of the Biden-Harris Administration on behalf of the American people. Jill and I have known and respected Karine a long time and she will be a strong voice speaking for me and this Administration,” Biden said in a statement.

Almost one year ago to the day, Jean-Pierre anchored her first White House briefing, where ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Mary Bruce asked her about making history at the podium.

“It’s a real honor to be standing here today,” Jean-Pierre said. “I appreciate the historic nature, I really do, but I believe that being behind this podium, being in this room, being in this building, is not about one person. It’s about what we do on behalf of the American people.”

“Clearly the president believes that representation matters, and I appreciate him giving me this opportunity, and it’s another reason why I think we are all so proud that this is the most diverse administration in history,” she added.

Psaki has long said she would leave the White House press office sometime this year, and Biden thanked her for “raising the bar” during in her tenure.

“Jen Psaki has set the standard for returning decency, respect and decorum to the White House Briefing Room. I want to say thank you to Jen for raising the bar, communicating directly and truthfully to the American people, and keeping her sense of humor while doing so. I thank Jen her service to the country, and wish her the very best as she moves forward,” Biden said in Thursday’s statement.

Psaki also offered kind words about her replacement as Jean-Pierre prepares to become the new face of the White House.

“She is passionate. She is smart and she has a moral core that makes her not just a great colleague, but an amazing Mom and human. Plus, she has a great sense of humor,” Psaki tweeted. “I can’t wait to see her shine as she brings her own style, brilliance and grace to the podium.”

Psaki didn’t comment on her plans, but if Psaki lands at NBC News next, as Axios has reported, it would follow a similar path to former Biden-Harris administration adviser Symone Sanders, who left last year to start a show on MSNBC.

ABC News’ Molly Nagle contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Senate will take a procedural vote to start debate on codifying abortion rights next week, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced Thursday.

Democrats have pledged to take swift action on the issue after a leaked draft opinion showed the Supreme Court could overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision legalizing abortion in the U.S. The draft is not the final ruling, though the court confirmed its authenticity.

“I intend to file cloture on this vital legislation on Monday which will set up a vote for Wednesday,” Schumer, D-N.Y., said on the Senate floor.

Any effort to protect abortion access nationwide is likely to face an uphill battle in the 50-50 divided chamber, where Democrats don’t have the 60 votes needed to overcome an expected filibuster.

The party has already experienced this problem with the Women’s Health and Protection Act. The bill cleared the House of Representatives in September 2021, but in the Senate Schumer failed to get even the entire Democratic caucus on board when he tried to start debate on the bill back in February.

The legislation would codify Roe while also banning requirements some states have put into place related to abortion care, such as waiting periods and mandatory doctor’s visits before the procedure.

Republicans have taken issue with how broad the Women’s Health and Protection Act is, prompting Democrats to draft a modified version. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., changed some of the bill’s language but it still may not be enough to sway the GOP members.

GOP Sen. Susan Collins of Maine told ABC News’ Trish Turner that she would vote “no” on the proposal.

“My goal is to codify what is essentially existing law,” Collins said. “That means Roe v. Wade, it means Casey v. Planned Parenthood, which established the undue burden test, and it means keeping the “conscience” protections which appear to be wiped out by the Democrats’ version. So, I’m not trying to go beyond current law or, but rather to codify those Supreme Court decisions.”

Collins is one of the Democratic Party’s best chances of gaining a Republican vote on any potential bill. She and Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska are the sole Senate Republicans who support abortion rights.

Collins and Murkowski have their own proposal to codify Roe. Their bill — dubbed the Reproductive Choice Act — would prohibit states from imposing an “undue burden” on the ability of a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy pre-viability but also allows states to keep other restrictions in place.

Senate Democrats held a news conference on Thursday afternoon to discuss next week’s vote.

“This is a life or death moment and we need to fight,” Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., told reporters.

Schumer said next week’s vote is intended to put on the record exactly where lawmakers stand on abortion rights.

“You will hear plenty from us,” Schumer said. “This is not just one vote and then this issue goes away. You will hear a lot from us through the next month all the way through November.”

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — A new, imposing eight-foot-high fence was erected overnight at the U.S. Supreme Court in the wake of protests over a bombshell draft opinion on abortion.

The leaked ruling, not yet final but confirmed to be authentic by the court, indicated its conservative majority is poised to overturn Roe v. Wade — the landmark decision that has guaranteed a woman’s right to abortion for almost the past 50 years.

Abortion rights activists — and some anti-abortion protesters — have rallied at the Supreme Court each day since Politico reported the draft document on Monday, including the preliminary votes of the majority.

More protests were expected on Thursday.

Neither the Supreme Court nor Capitol Police have said anything publicly about possible threats to the court or the justices.

The protests outside the court’s marble front steps have been largely peaceful, prompting some to question why the new security barrier — reminiscent of the unscalable fencing placed around the U.S. Capitol after the violence of Jan. 6, 2021 — is necessary.

John Becker, a spokesperson at Catholics For Choice, said the measures appear “ominous and disproportionate to what has actually been transpiring on that plaza.”

But the court has often been a magnet for threats and security concerns. Just two weeks ago, a man reportedly described as an environmental activist died after setting himself on fire on the court’s front plaza, possibly related to his views on climate change.

A Supreme Court spokeswoman declined to comment on the fencing, citing a longstanding policy of not discussing security operations.

The justices are scheduled to next meet in person for a private conference on May 12. A final decision in the abortion case, which centers on a Mississippi law banning the procedure after 15 weeks of pregnancy, is expected by the end of June or early July.

In the draft opinion, dated Feb. 10, Justice Samuel Alito wrote, “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” adding, “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled.”

If the draft document written by Alito were to hold as written, access to abortion across the country could be upended. Thirteen states have so-called “trigger laws” in place to swiftly ban abortion if Roe v. Wade is repealed.

Democrats on Capitol Hill are working to bring forward legislation to codify abortion rights at the federal level. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said he plans to hold a vote as soon as next week.

The House of Representatives passed the Women’s Health Protection Act to codify Roe last fall but the bill has stalled in the Senate. Any other legislation would likely meet a similar fate in the evenly divided chamber.

The Supreme Court’s leaked opinion draft’s language has sparked concern that other unenumerated rights may be at stake, including gay marriage and contraception.

“This is about a lot more than abortion,” President Joe Biden said while giving remarks at the White House on Wednesday.

“What are the next things that are going to be attacked?” Biden asked. “Because this MAGA crowd is really the most extreme political organization that’s existed in American history — in recent American history.”

Roberts confirmed the draft was authentic on Tuesday, stating he’s directed the start of an investigation into the leak. Supreme Court Marshall Gail Curley, a career Army lawyer, will lead the probe.

“We at the Court are blessed to have a workforce — permanent employees and law clerks alike — intensely loyal to the institution and dedicated to the rule of law. Court employees have an exemplary and important tradition of respecting the confidentiality of the judicial process and upholding the trust of the Court,” Roberts said in a statement. “This was a singular and egregious breach of that trust that is an affront to the Court and the community of public servants who work here.”

ABC News’ Devin Dwyer and Luke Barr contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — State governments across the country are taking steps to firm up abortion rights if the Supreme Court decides to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision that granted protections for a woman’s right to an abortion.

A leaked Supreme Court draft opinion published by Politico on Monday apparently shows that the court will overturn Roe. Chief Justice John Roberts confirmed the authenticity of the draft and ordered an investigation into its release.

More than half of Americans oppose abortion bans. A new ABC News-Washington Post poll found that 57% of Americans oppose a ban after 15 weeks. Fifty-eight percent said abortion should be legal in all or most cases and 54% said the court should uphold Roe.

State legislatures have introduced a range of legislation to end existing restrictions, protect the right to abortion and increase access to abortion care, according data from the Guttmacher Institute, which studies sexual and reproductive health and rights.

While overturning Roe would not criminalize abortion at the federal level, experts said it would be left to states to regulate abortions.

“In the absence of a federal right to abortion, then each state could determine for itself whether to protect and expand abortion rights and access or whether to prohibit abortion entirely,” said Elisabeth Smith, the director for state policy and advocacy at the Center for Reproductive Rights.

Smith added, “Roe, for the last almost 50 years, has provided essentially a federal floor and states are not allowed to go beneath the protections of Roe, but states were always free to create more protections and more access than Roe affords. If Roe is overruled, essentially that federal floor would be removed and all abortion policy would be up to each state.”

This map shows where abortion will remain legal in the U.S. if Roe is indeed overturned.

The Center for Reproductive Rights estimates that up to 25 states could outlaw abortion entirely. Of the remaining, 22 states have a state right to abortion established in a state constitution or state statute, while three do not have state protections for abortion.

“So regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision, abortion will remain legal in at least 22 states,” Smith said.

Abortion is not protected in New Mexico, Virginia and New Hampshire. Smith said women in these states will still likely have access to abortion in the future.

“In New Mexico, they very recently repealed their pre-Roe ban. Virginia, two years ago, repealed many medically unnecessary abortion restrictions that had been in statute for a long time. New Hampshire does not have many of the abortion bans and restrictions that we see in the states that we term ‘hostile’ to abortion rights,” Smith said.

Live Action, a nonprofit anti-abortion group, told ABC News that 22 states already have anti-abortion laws that would kick in if Roe falls.

“Nine states in this group have pre-Roe abortion restrictions still on the books; 13 states have a so-called ‘trigger ban’ that is tied to Roe being overturned and five states have laws passed after Roe restricting nearly all abortions,” Live Action told ABC News.

Another dozen states have six- or eight-week restrictions there are not currently in effect, while Texas’ six-week restriction is in effect. Four states have constitutions that ban the right to abortion, according to Live Action.

While several states have moved to limit or ban access to abortions, many states have also moved to expand access and increase protections for them.

Progressive states are expanding access for their residents and enacting measures to support people from other states who may need to cross state borders to receive access to abortion services due to new restrictions or bans in their home state, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

State legislatures have introduced 231 protective measures in 29 states and the District of Columbia between Jan. 1 and April 14, according to Guttmacher.

Only 11 protective measures have been enacted in seven states in that time frame, according to Guttmacher.

The governor in Colorado signed a bill in April codifying the right to abortion. A Connecticut bill passed in April that protects women who get abortions, those who assist them and abortion providers, and prevents state agencies from assisting interstate investigators seeking to hold people liable. Vermont passed a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to abortion which will be on the ballot in November, according to Live Action.

Despite efforts by Maryland’s governor to veto a bill that expands who can provide abortions, state lawmakers were able to override his veto in April.

Efforts to protect access to abortion include provisions expanding the types of health care professionals who can provide abortion care; legislation to assist patients with paying for an abortion; and earmarking state funds for abortion services.

Three states — Colorado, New Jersey and Washington — have enacted rules that establish or expand statutory protections for the right to abortion. Two states, Maryland and Washington, have authorized advanced practice clinicians to provide abortion care, according to Guttmacher.

California, Maryland, New York and Oregon have enacted legislation that requires health plans to cover abortion or establish a state fund to assist with abortion costs, according to Guttmacher.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(NEW YORK) — Abortion-rights advocates are responding to the leaked draft opinion of the Supreme Court majority opinion on the pending Mississippi abortion case that was first reported by Politico on Monday.

According to the copy of the draft opinion, which the court has confirmed is authentic but not final, a majority of justices appear to side with the Mississippi state legislature and will vote to effectively overturn the landmark abortion precedent set by Roe v. Wade.

Amid the reports, a recent ABC News/Washington Poll found that a majority of Americans support upholding Roe v. Wade. Since Monday, many are calling on Congress to act. President Joe Biden said Tuesday that “a whole range of rights are in question.”

Some abortion providers, like Shannon Brewer, said they weren’t surprised by the draft opinion. Brewer is the director of Mississippi’s only abortion clinic, Jackson Women’s Health. She spoke with ABC News’ podcast Start Here on Wednesday morning.

“This is what we’ve been expecting,” said Brewer. “It didn’t come as a shock to a lot of us here.”

Currently, in the state of Mississippi, abortion is legal up until 20 weeks into the pregnancy.

In October, the Mississippi state legislature passed a law that would reduce the legal number to 15 weeks. According to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights, an estimated 54,000 to 63,000 abortions in the U.S. occur annually at 15 weeks and later into the pregnancy.

After the Supreme Court heard arguments in December, the case remains pending.

Chief Justice John Roberts and the court released a statement Tuesday in response to the leaked draft, saying that it “does not represent a by the Court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case.”

Despite this statement, Brewer said she expects the final verdict will not change that much.

“I expect them fully to overturn. I expect these states to start banning abortions immediately. I expect us to have to stop seeing patients immediately,” said Brewer. “That’s what we’re expecting and that’s what it’s looking like… It’s going to happen.”

While the Mississippi’s law remains under review by the Supreme Court, 26 states have already set so-called “trigger laws” that would immediately prohibit abortions if Roe v. Wade is overturned, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Brewer said that she is working across state lines to open other facilities, one called the Pink House West, to continue to help patients.

“This is not something that is going to just affect Mississippi within the year. This is going to affect upwards of 25 to 26 states, which is half of the United States,” said Brewer, who added that her clinic is seeing patients travel from Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas and Oklahoma in order to receive care. “We’re still busy every single day.”

She added that the group is already seeking to open a new location in New Mexico, which is less likely to enact sweeping bans.

She said their clinic isn’t the only one – clinics across the country are overrun with patients. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, Brewer said she predicts a “catastrophe.”

“I predict a lot of unwanted pregnancies. That’ll cause unwanted births. I predict an uptick in women showing up at the hospital, bleeding out and having issues due to unsafe things that they’ve been doing out of being desperate and can’t get to a facility,” said Brewer.

Brewer said her message to women who may have just found out that they are pregnant is to “pay attention every day.”

“We don’t know from one day to the next what’s going to go on in each state,” said Brewer. “People don’t pay attention to issues going on with abortion until it affects them, until they need the service they don’t think it’s as important.”

Overall, Brewer said that women who can’t afford to travel to other states to get abortions will be affected most by banning or prohibiting abortions.

“It’s going to be the women who need it the most,” she said. “They’re going to be the ones that can’t get out.”

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — As Dr. Mehmet Oz embarks on a bid for the U.S. Senate, the television star has largely shied away from discussing his ties to Turkey, where he maintains citizenship, and dismissed criticism from political opponents that he harbors any so-called “dual loyalties.”

But a photograph of Oz casting a ballot in Turkey’s 2018 presidential election is rankling some national security experts — particularly after recently saying he has “never been politically involved in Turkey in any capacity.”

“The decision to vote in a foreign country’s election is problematic from a security clearance perspective,” according to John V. Berry, a former government lawyer with expertise in federal security clearances.

After a rocky start to his campaign, Oz recently earned a coveted endorsement from former President Donald Trump, bolstering his chances of capturing the Republican nod. But political opponents have continued to target his connections to Turkey — a strategy the Oz campaign and others have called xenophobic smears. If elected, Oz has said he would renounce his Turkish citizenship.

When asked about the photograph, which appeared in June 2018 on the Facebook page of Turkey’s consulate in Manhattan, Brittany Yanick, an Oz campaign spokesperson, confirmed its authenticity to ABC News and confirmed that Oz did vote in the 2018 election. According to Yanick, Oz voted for opposition candidate Muharrem Ince in his unsuccessful campaign against Turkish President Recep Tayyep Erdogan. She denied that Oz’s vote amounted to “political involvement.”

“Voting in an election is far different from being actively engaged in the political work of the Turkish government, which Dr. Oz has never been involved with,” Yanick told ABC News. “There is no security issue whatsoever.”

Elected officials are not subjected to the same level of scrutiny as civilians who seek security clearances for sensitive government work; once sworn-in, lawmakers are granted access to classified information, unless the executive branch denies them certain information.

But the background check process for civilians can also “provide a framework for analyzing whether someone is trustworthy or not,” according to Kel McClanahan, the executive director of National Security Counselors, a nonprofit public interest law firm. And for McClanahan, voting in another country’s election would set off a “giant, flashing red light.”

Born and raised in Ohio, Oz has said that he maintains dual U.S.-Turkey citizenship to care for his mother in Turkey, who suffers from Alzheimer’s disease. He also served in the Turkish army for 60 days in the early 1980s — reportedly to retain his Turkish citizenship — and maintains real estate holdings in Turkey, plus has an endorsement deal the country’s national airline, Turkish Airlines.

“Any single one of those would be enough to torpedo a [security] clearance,” McClanahan said. “Taken together, I would not put good odds on that person getting a clearance anywhere.”

Turkish voting records indicate that the 2018 presidential election was the first in which Oz participated. Prior to the 2014 election, Turks living abroad could only vote by returning home or by visiting polling stations set up on Turkey’s borders.

Yanick, the campaign spokesperson, said Oz did not plan to vote in the 2018 election, but decided to cast a ballot while at the consulate discussing his “humanitarian work on behalf of Syrian refugees in Turkey.”

“It was during an election season, so he voted,” Yanick said.

Other security experts ABC News spoke with expressed less concern with Oz’s 2018 vote. Steve Aftergood, a senior analyst at the Federation of American Scientists, said that because Oz has been transparent about his ties to Turkey, his dual citizenship alone is more of a political concern for him than a risk to national security.

“The fact that [Oz] has made no effort to conceal his dual citizenship counts in his favor,” Aftergood said. “Voters will have an opportunity to decide whether or not it is of concern to them.”

Security experts that ABC News consulted emphasized that the country in question matters when considering potential foreign influence risks. A person’s ties to Turkey, a NATO member and strategic ally to the U.S., present far less of a threat than China or Russia.

But in recent years, Turkish President Erdogan has demonstrated increasingly authoritarian behavior, jailing journalists and summarily silencing opposition voices. Erdogan has also strained ties with the U.S. by purchasing Russian weapons systems.

Richard Grenell, the former Director of National Intelligence under President Trump, characterized Oz’s understanding of Turkey an asset in the fight against authoritarianism.

“It is frankly un-American to suggest that first- and second-generation Americans are unworthy or suspect to work as a U.S. official,” Grenell said. “They’ve seen fascism and totalitarianism and are actually more clear-eyed about what is at stake.”

Background check investigators consider “the totality of circumstances” when investigating those seeking security clearances, said Sean Bigley, a national security lawyer and former Trump-appointee to the National Security Education Board. Bigley said Oz’s portfolio of risk would likely include his existing financial ties to Turkey.

According to financial disclosures submitted in April, Oz owns several hundreds of thousands of dollars in real estate property in Turkey, including a building he has leased out to the Turkish Ministry of Education for free. The building is being used as a student dormitory, according to his disclosure form, and “is subject to pending trust and estate litigation.”

The disclosure form also shows Oz scored a lucrative endorsement contract with Turkish Airlines, Turkey’s national flag-carrying airline. Experts say the air carrier has grown increasingly close to Erdogan since 2018, when he named himself chairman of the country’s sovereign wealth fund, which holds a 49% stake.

In 2018, Oz appeared in a Super Bowl advertisement for Turkish Airlines, and in 2021, he appeared in a four-minute informational discussing the airline’s COVID-19 safety protocols as a brand ambassador.

Any wealth Oz has accumulated from his interests in Turkey, including the airline deal, would reflect only a small amount of his full financial picture. In all, Oz’s disclosure shows that he and his spouse together own between $104 and $422 million in various assets and holdings.

Even so, Bigley said, “if I were advising [Oz], I would suggest divesting from any assets or … financial ties with any entity of the Turkish government.”

Oz has faced criticism for not using his celebrity prominence as a platform for denouncing Erdogan’s clampdowns on opposition and other democratic backsliding. Some suggest that Oz’s continuing financial interests in Turkey create a disincentive for him to criticize its leadership, as doing so could put Oz at risk of having his Turkish assets seized.

“It is the nature of the Turkish system and authoritarian systems more generally that folks who do not want to be targeted by the state kowtow to leaders or keep their mouth shut,” said Steven Cook, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “There are many examples of people who have dared to criticize Erdogan who have been forcibly divested.”

Nicholas Danforth, a non-resident fellow at the Hellenic Foundation for European and Foreign Policy, an Athens-based think tank, agreed.

“If you wanted to have a lucrative career as a spokesman for Turkish Airlines, you certainly couldn’t say anything negative about Erdogan,” Danforth said.

According to several news reports published since launching his campaign, Oz has met with Erdogan on at least two occasions, in 2014 and 2018, and attended events with officials in Erdogan’s party. Oz has said that attending these functions was normal for a Turkish-American of his stature.

Asked whether Oz had taken a public stance against Erdogan, Yanick provided ABC News with comments Oz made at a January 2022 campaign event in which he said he “would be the harshest critic of Erdogan” in the Senate.

“The country that I respected when I was growing up — Turkey, the country my father left — was a secular country where there was no significant Islamic rule elements, period,” he said. “And it was not a dictatorship.”

Hailed in the West as a charismatic leader with the potential to return Turkey to its secular roots, Muharrem Ince fell to Erdogan in the 2018 election by a substantial margin — 52 percent to 30. Ince attracted support from a broad coalition of anti-Erdogan parties, but also expressed some controversial opinions — including an interest in rebuilding ties with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

“Ince was hardly a paragon of democracy, human rights, and tolerance,” said Cook.

As one of Turkey’s most recognizable figures in the West, Oz is not the first high-profile candidate to face accusations of a so-called “dual loyalty,” a claim reminiscent of attacks against Catholics, Jews and members of other religious and ethnic groups in previous generations.

During the 2016 presidential campaign, then-candidate Donald Trump accused Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, of maintaining dual loyalties to Canada, his country of birth, even though Cruz had renounced his Canadian citizenship in 2014. Trump has not expressed any similar concern for Oz’s arrangement.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Attorneys with the Department of Justice recently clashed behind closed doors with staff members for the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, two sources familiar with the matter tell ABC News.

In a roughly five-hour interview last month that House investigators conducted with former Acting U.S. Attorney Michael Sherwin, attorneys from the DOJ’s Office of Legislative Affairs repeatedly objected to questions that they argued could impact the DOJ’s ongoing work prosecuting accused Jan. 6 rioters.

Sherwin had been tasked with leading the early stages of the DOJ’s criminal investigation into the attack, and sources told ABC News that during the interview, DOJ attorneys were highly sensitive to questions posed by House investigators that were related to the early stages of the probe.

At one point, interactions between Jan. 6 staffers and DOJ attorneys grew so contentious that Sherwin stepped out of the room so the discussion could continue in private, sources said.

The episode reflects a rare instance of tensions surfacing between the committee and the Justice Department, which over the past year have quietly been working together to ensure their parallel investigations don’t compromise sensitive matters involving the DOJ’s criminal prosecutions.

Sherwin is not the first former DOJ official authorized by the department to testify before the Jan. 6 select committee, and other witnesses — including former Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen — were subject to similar limitations on their testimony in front of Congress.

“The Department has a longstanding policy not to provide congressional testimony concerning prosecutorial deliberations,” said a DOJ letter sent to Rosen authorizing his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last year. “Discussion of pending criminal cases and possible charges also could violate court rules and potentially implicate rules of professional conduct governing extra-judicial statements.”

But Jan. 6 investigators, according to sources, believed the limitations on Sherwin’s testimony were overly restrictive in prohibiting him from discussing any information starting from the time the Capitol was under assault.

Spokespeople for the Justice Department and the Jan. 6 select committee declined to comment to ABC News regarding the interview, and Sherwin himself also declined to comment.

Sherwin, who served as acting U.S. attorney through the end of Donald Trump’s administration and stayed on into the Biden administration, resigned from the Justice Department in April of 2021 after he sat for an interview with CBS’ 60 Minutes that was not authorized by senior DOJ officials. Sherwin told 60 Minutes that evidence potentially supported charges of sedition against some of those who participated in the attack.

Soon after the 60 Minutes interview, a federal judge admonished DOJ prosecutors over Sherwin’s comments, which the judge said could potentially taint the government’s case against members of the Oath Keepers militia group charged in connection with the Jan. 6 attack.

The Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility launched an investigation into Sherwin over the 60 Minutes report, but it’s unclear whether that probe continued after Sherwin left the department and joined a private law firm. Nearly a year after the 60 Minutes interview, in January of this year, 11 members of the Oath Keepers, including founder Stewart Rhodes, were charged by the DOJ with seditious conspiracy.

As a result of the limitations asserted by DOJ attorneys, Sherwin’s answers to the Jan. 6 committee’s questions last month were largely limited to discussing his concerns about failures in intelligence-sharing prior to the Jan. 6 attack, sources said. Sherwin was critical of how FBI officials have defended their intelligence gathering in the period leading up to Jan. 6, noting that some individuals on social media had publicly expressed a desire to disrupt Congress’ certification of the 2020 vote, per sources.

Jan. 6 committee staffers also questioned Sherwin about whether any officials in the Trump White House or elsewhere had sought to influence any of the early decisions made by prosecutors in their cases against rioters who stormed the Capitol. Sherwin denied that any such overtures took place, sources said.

By the time Sherwin left his post as acting U.S. attorney in March of 2021, the office had brought charges against more than 300 individuals in connection with the assault on the Capitol.

According to the latest ABC News tally, that number has since grown to nearly 800 people, including members of groups like the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys who are accused of coordinating among each other in advance of the attack.

ABC News’ Benjamin Siegel contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.