Politics

(AUSTIN, Texas) — Before 1973, fatal “back-alley” and “coat-hanger” procedures in places where abortion was illegal became emblematic of the impact of abortion bans.

But in modern times, those images have become obsolete with the use of medication abortion, advocates say.

This has become especially relevant in light of Texas’ new abortion law that bans the procedure as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, making it inaccessible for many across the state.

“An abortion road trip is a thing of the past,” said Elisa Wells, co-founder and co-director of Plan C, an abortion research and pro-abortion rights advocacy group. “We have safe and effective medical technology in the form of abortion pills and online access to care that can deliver it directly to your doorstep. This is the 21st century and everybody deserves the same access to care that we have through mainstream medical channels.”

In a medication abortion, patients take two pills: mifepristone, which stops the production of progesterone, and misoprostol, which causes the abortion. Without progesterone, uterine lining breaks down and a pregnancy is prevented from continuing, according to Planned Parenthood.

The regimen is approved by the FDA to end pregnancies up to ​10 weeks.

Mifepristone is only supplied to health care providers who meet certain qualifications and is recommended by the FDA to be taken by or under the supervision of a certified prescriber to ensure safe use.

But, advocates say, people still seek abortions when governments restrict access to the procedures, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive rights research organization.

With no other options for a legal abortion, some feel forced into unsupervised or illegal tactics to obtain one — which could include obtaining medication through methods like utilizing a telehealth appointment with a provider in a state where it is legal, having pills mailed via international organizations on the internet, or crossing the border to Mexico, where misoprostol is sold in pharmacies as an ulcer medication.

Safety concerns

Medication abortion with both mifepristone and misoprostol is effective more than 95% of the time, according to the Guttmacher Institute. A 2013 study of 47,283 subjects found 0.3% were hospitalized for complications, such as vaginal bleeding, pelvic pain or infection.

In medical settings where it is legal, doctors say it is safe for patients to take the pills and have an abortion at home. For example, some Planned Parenthood locations have begun offering at-home services via telehealth where that is legal.

A recent study by Ushma Upadhyay, an associate professor at the University of California San Francisco, found evidence that medication abortion care administered online via telehealth providers is feasible and safe.

Still, there are some medical concerns about obtaining pills to self-manage an abortion outside of doctors’ guidance. International pills haven’t been checked by U.S. authorities for quality, and people who acquire misoprostol on their own may not know the right dosages without the guidance of a clinician.

Misoprostol, which is sold across the border without mifepristone, is 85% successful in inducing abortion in the first trimester on its own, according to the International Women’s Health Coalition. A 2019 research article in the Obstetrics & Gynecology journal found that misoprostol alone is an effective, safe option for people seeking an abortion in their first trimester.

Overall, however, advocates say the risk level is low.

“It (may not be) legally safe, but it is medically safe. And I think that accessing these medications in an unregulated way may be the only recourse for many people, the only way to have reproductive autonomy,” Upadhyay told ABC News.

Legal questions

While studies indicate medical concerns are relatively limited, there are legal questions about accessing medication abortion.

International providers who operate on the internet, for example, often skirt around local legislation restricting abortion access.

Thirty-four states only allow physicians to help patients obtain medication abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Nineteen states require physicians be physically present with the patient, which essentially bans the use of telemedicine to prescribe the medication.

Meanwhile, the new Texas law, which the Supreme Court allowed to go into effect but is being legally challenged, authorizes private citizens to bring civil suits against anyone who “aids or abets” an abortion — but not the patient themself.

With that, it’s unclear how lawsuits against online providers would fare in Texas — but the law implies that doctors from out of state, online providers or people who drive others to get an abortion may be at risk if a fetal heartbeat had been detected and known at the time of the abortion.

“If an individual were to get an abortion, that individual would not be penalized, but everyone who was involved in that patient’s care would be at risk of getting sued by someone who’s part of the anti-abortion movement,” said Dr. Meera Shah, the chief medical officer at Planned Parenthood Hudson Peconic.

Restricted access

Self-managed abortion has been pushed into the spotlight by the Texas law, which is the most restrictive abortion ban to go into effect in decades.

“This is driving patients into a panic,” said Shah. “Our health centers in Texas are getting inundated with phone calls from patients, trying to figure out where they can get care or how they can get care.”

Before the Texas ban directly restricted access to abortion, other states had made it difficult for abortion clinics to remain open, forcing anyone in search of an in-clinic procedure or an in-person physician consultation to travel long distances for an available provider.

Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), a research group at the University of California, San Francisco’s Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health found that there are at least 27 “abortion deserts” in the country — cities with populations of over 100,000 where residents must travel more than 100 miles to reach a clinic.

ANSIRH has also found that denying people an abortion can cause economic hardship and insecurity. People denied an abortion are more likely to stay with a violent or abusive partner and are more likely to raise the child alone.

“What’s so important is to focus on people who are the most underserved: those are the people who won’t know about Aid Access, won’t be able to travel, low income populations and immigrant populations, people with limited English proficiency,” Upadhyay said.

“These are the people that are going to end up having to carry to term because they just have no other choice,” she added.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The “Justice for J6” rally was billed as a protest for defendants being detained in connection with the January insurrection at the Capitol.

At least 610 individuals have been federally charged for their involvement in the Jan. 6 riot at the United States Capitol, according to the Department of Justice. Most of the roughly 60 who remain behind bars are suspects prosecutors and judges have identified as posing a credible and ongoing threat to the public’s safety.

Many of the same far-right groups and individuals who promoted the original Jan. 6 rally-turned insurrection this time warned supporters to avoid the demonstration at all costs. Former President Donald Trump has called it a “setup” but also released a statement supporting those charged.

With the House and Senate both out, no lawmakers were at the Capitol on Saturday. But preventative security measures were taken, including the reinstallation of temporary fencing around the Capitol complex.

Latest developments:

• Man with knife arrested, Capitol Police say
• Rally organizer lays out ‘ground rules’
• Counterprotesters arrive ahead of rally
• US Capitol Police swear in law enforcement partners ahead of rally
• Capitol Police prepared in case of violence but hopeful for peaceful event

Here is how the news is developing today. All times Eastern. Check back for updates.

Sep 18, 2:05 pm
Rally concludes without any known major incidents

The “Justice for J6” rally wrapped up Saturday afternoon after about an hour of speeches, without any major known incidents.

Authorities had warned of possible threats of violence at the event, and Capitol Police officers could be seen in riot gear standing on the perimeter of the crowd as people gathered in front of the U.S. Capitol.

Metropolitan Police Department Chief Robert Contee also said in a video message Saturday that the department had security “covered” for the event and was ensuring that people could “peacefully express their First Amendment rights.”

Capitol Police said they arrested a man for a weapons violation shortly before the rally kicked off. He allegedly had a knife. Additional details were not immediately available.

No other arrests have been reported at this time.

The Capitol Police Civil Disturbance Unit also responded to a group of protestors and counterprotestors near the Capitol and “separated the groups without incident,” police said.

Sep 18, 1:34 pm
Man with knife arrested, Capitol Police say

Right before the rally kicked off, Capitol Police say they arrested a man with a knife for a weapons violation.

The arrest happened at 12:40 p.m., authorities said. No other details were immediately provided.

Knives are one of over a dozen prohibited items and activities on Capitol Grounds, along with firearms, mace, ammunition and other items.

In the days leading up to the rally, DC Police posted signage in the area of the rally that stated: “All firearms prohibited within 1000 feet of this sign.”

Sep 18, 1:11 pm
Rally organizer lays out ‘ground rules’

Rally organizer Matt Braynard laid out “some ground rules” at the start of the protest, urging the crowd to be respectful of law enforcement.

“There are uniformed officers here who I demand that you respect, you are kind to, you’re respectful to and you’re obedient to,” he said. “They’re here to keep us safe.”

He condemned the violence of the insurrection while calling for transparency in the investigation of the Jan. 6 riot.

“Anybody who engaged in that kind of violence or property destruction that day deserves to be tried with a speedy trial,” he said.

“This is about the many people who were there that day who have not been charged with violence, not been accused of assaulting a police officer or destroying property and the disparate treatment they received,” he continued.

At least 610 people have been federally charged in connection with the insurrection. About 60 remain behind bars, most of whom are suspects prosecutors and judges have identified as posing a credible threat to public safety based on either their alleged violent assaults against police or role in planning the riot.

-ABC News’ Alexander Mallin

Sep 18, 11:45 am
Counterprotesters arrive ahead of rally

Counterprotesters could be seen gathering near the Capitol ahead of Saturday’s rally, toting signs and flags.

One man had a hand-painted sign with the word “Loser” on it, which he told the Associated Press referred to former President Donald Trump.

A woman could also be seen carrying Black Lives Matter flags.

It is unclear how many protesters and counterprotesters will show up for the event, though organizers have secured a permit for 700 attendees.

Sep 18, 10:54 am
US Capitol Police swear in law enforcement partners ahead of rally

Hours before the rally is set to take place, U.S. Capitol Police swore in local, state and federal law enforcement partners Saturday morning, giving the officers jurisdiction in the areas surrounding the Capitol.

Capitol Police said Friday they are working with over 27 agencies from around the region to secure the event.

Officers from Fairfax County, Virginia, to Montgomery County, Maryland, are supposed to be on hand to help Capitol Police.

-ABC News’ Luke Barr

Sep 18, 10:12 am
Capitol Police prepared in case of violence but hopeful for peaceful event

U.S. Capitol Police are prepared for potential violence at the “Justice for J6” rally, though are hopeful Saturday’s event “remains peaceful,” U.S. Capitol Police Chief J. Tom Manger said.

“There have been some threats of violence associated” with the rally, Manger told reporters at a press briefing Friday. “We have a strong plan in place to ensure that it remains peaceful and that if violence does occur, that we can stop it as quickly as possible.”

Capitol Police leadership has been working over the last eight months “to ensure that we don’t have a repeat of January 6,” Manger added.

Manger told ABC News’ Congressional Correspondent Rachel Scott he is most concerned about violent conflicts between protesters and counterprotesters.

Fencing started going up around the Capitol complex earlier this week as part of an “enhanced security posture” to shield the Capitol from any violence, authorities said.

-ABC News’ Luke Barr

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Law enforcement leaders were unified in their message on Friday: We are prepared for the “Justice for J6” rally.

The event on Saturday, billed as a protest against defendants being detained in connection with the Jan. 6 insurrection, has law enforcement on high alert as they seek to avoid the kind of violence that ensued during the Capitol riot.

“There have been some threats of violence associated with this events for tomorrow. And we have a strong plan in place to ensure that it remains peaceful and that if violence does occur, that we can stop it as quickly as possible,” U.S. Capitol Police Chief J. Tom Manger told reporters at a press conference on Friday.

“Over the last eight months, the leadership of the U.S. Capitol Police Department has been preparing, working to ensure that we don’t have a repeat of January 6,” Manger continued.

Fencing around the Capitol complex starting going up on Wednesday night, Capitol Police said, as part of the “enhanced security posture” to shield the Capitol from any violence that could break out.

Manger told ABC News’ Congressional Correspondent Rachel Scott he is most concerned about violent conflicts between protesters and counterprotesters.

The Department of Homeland Security on Thursday warned that some individuals involved in or opposed to the rally “may seek to engage in violence” but said there was no “specific or credible plot associated with the event,” according to a bulletin shared with state and local law enforcement and obtained by ABC News.

There was, however, a caveat.

“Lone offenders and small groups of individuals can mobilize to violence with little-to-no warning, particularly in response to confrontational encounters with perceived opponents or calls for escalation by key influencers,” the bulletin says. “The likely use of encrypted or closed communication platforms by those seeking to commit violence challenges law enforcement’s ability to identify and disrupt potential plotting.”

In early September, some social media users “discussed storming the US Capitol on the night before the rally, and one user commented on kidnapping an identified member of Congress,” the bulletin says. House offices were encouraged to work remotely Friday, according to a Thursday email from the House Administration Committee and obtained by ABC News.

Melissa Smislova, the deputy under secretary for intelligence and enterprise readiness at the DHS, told attendees at the Homeland Security Enterprise Forum on Tuesday that the department expects 700 people in Washington for the event, the same number permitted to attend.

Top DHS officials, including Homeland security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, have said they’ve stepped up their communications with state and local partners in advance of the event.

Benjamin Siegel contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The Food and Drug Administration’s independent advisory committee will convene in open session Friday to review the latest data submitted by Pfizer and discuss whether a booster dose is safe enough for widespread use and whether it’s necessary and effective at improving protection levels against COVID-19.

Their vote will be non-binding — the FDA is not required to follow the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee’s (VRBPAC) recommendations — but they generally do so.

After that vote, the FDA will decide whether they will formally amend their current vaccine approval for Pfizer. Next week the matter heads to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s independent advisory panel (ACIP), where that panel will weigh on a more granular level who should get a booster and when? The CDC director will then formally sign off on whatever ACIP recommends.

Friday morning’s opening remarks are set to kick off at 8:30 a.m. ET, followed by introductions by the FDA, presentations from CDC representatives, a discussion about booster protection and a presentation from Pfizer executives who will make the case for why boosters are appropriate.

After a public hearing portion in the afternoon and a question-and-answer session on both Pfizer’s and the FDA’s presentations, the committee will debate the issue for roughly two hours. A vote is expected at about 4:45 p.m. ET, if they stay on schedule.

The meeting Friday comes amid a contentious debate on the timeline for boosters, with some health experts vehement that the data and timing is still premature.

Two top FDA officials who are leaving the agency later this year publicly waded into the debate on Monday, splitting from the agency and arguing in a scientific journal that it was too soon to give booster shots to the general public since the vaccines still offer strong protection against serious disease.

Both are scheduled to attend Friday’s discussion. One of them, the director of the agency’s office of vaccines research and review, is supposed to give an overarching introduction of the topic for the FDA in the beginning of the day.

Also joining Friday’s meeting is the head of Israel’s public health services, Dr. Sharon Alroy Preis, who is set to present data on booster protection against COVID infection and severe disease.

In a review of Pfizer’s data, also released Wednesday, the FDA appeared to be noncommittal on the necessity for boosters. The agency pointed out that Pfizer’s efficacy data could be hampered by the limitations of studying boosters in real-world situations, which can introduce complicating factors.

“There are many po­ten­tial­ly rel­e­vant stud­ies, but FDA has not in­de­pen­dent­ly re­viewed or ver­i­fied the un­der­ly­ing da­ta or their con­clu­sions,” the agency wrote in its briefing.

Naming no one — but nodding to those lingering concerns — Pfizer’s CEO Albert Bourla penned an open letter on Thursday making the case for booster shots.

“This week we are approaching another pivotal moment in our ongoing fight against the virus,” Bourla writes of Friday’s FDA advisory committee. “Since the start of this pandemic, Pfizer and BioNTech have pledged to follow the science and keep people informed about our progress to help bring an end to this global health crisis. We have stayed true to our commitment of full transparency without selectively cherry-picking data.”

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — A lawyer whose firm represented Hillary Clinton’s campaign during the 2016 presidential election was indicted Thursday by special counsel John Durham on a single charge of making a false statement to the FBI.

Michael Sussmann, an attorney for the Perkins Coie law firm who previously represented the Democratic National Committee following the hacking of its servers by Russia during the 2016 campaign, is accused of lying “about the capacity in which he was providing allegations to the FBI” when he met with a top lawyer from the bureau in September 2016 and provided him information about potential ties between a Russian bank and computer servers in the Trump Organization.

“Specifically, SUSSMANN state falsely that he was not doing his work on the aforementioned allegations “for any client,” which led the FBI General Counsel (James A. Baker) to understand that SUSSMANN was acting as a good citizen merely passing along information, not as a paid advocate or political operative,” prosecutors write in the indictment.

They allege instead that Sussmamn intentionally misled the FBI general counsel because he was acting at the time on behalf of an unnamed tech executive, an “U.S. internet company” and Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Campaign.

Prior to his indictment Thursday, Sussmann’s attorneys provided a statement to ABC News maintaining his innocence.

“Mr. Sussmann has committed no crime,” attorneys Sean Berkowitz and Michael Bosworth of the law firm Latham and Watkins said. “Any prosecution here would be baseless, unprecedented, and an unwarranted deviation from the apolitical and principled way in which the Department of Justice is supposed to do its work.”

“We are confident that if Mr. Sussmann is charged, he will prevail at trial and vindicate his good name,” they added.

Durham was appointed by former Attorney General William Barr in May 2019 to investigate allegations of misconduct by members of the FBI and the intelligence community in their investigation of potential ties between Russia and former President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign for the presidency. Before his resignation, Barr appointed Durham as special counsel extending his tenure into the Biden administration.

While Durham’s probe has long since lapsed the total duration of former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, prior to Thursday he had yielded only one indictment against a lower-level FBI lawyer who admitted to doctoring an email used in seeking surveillance against a former aide to Trump’s campaign. That lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, was sentenced to probation earlier this year.

Durham has been tasked with creating a report outlining his findings, though it will be up to Attorney General Merrick Garland to determine whether to make those findings public. Garland has said publicly he has no intention of interfering in Durham’s work.

The indictment alleges Sussmann began in 2016 working with a U.S. tech executive and other cyber researchers in coordination with the Clinton campaign to assemble “white papers” on a potential communications channel between the Trump Organization and Russian-owned Alfa Bank. Sussmann later provided Baker with the documents in a Sept. 19, 2016 meeting where he is alleged to have made the false statement about who he was acting on behalf of at the time.

The connections were later examined by the FBI, but not substantiated.

In a 2017 deposition with House lawmakers, Sussmann said that he requested the meeting on behalf of a client who was a cybersecurity expert that held data he said showed ties between Alfa Bank and the Trump Organization. According to a source familiar with the matter, his legal team denied in meetings with Durham’s team that his meeting with Baker was coordinated or on behalf of members of Clinton’s campaign.

The meeting between Sussman and Baker occurred more than a month after the FBI’s “Crossfire Hurricane” investigation — looking into whether people associated with the Trump campaign were coordinating, wittingly or unwittingly, with the Russian government’s efforts to interfere with the 2016 campaign — was opened on July 31.

Days earlier, on July 27, 2016, then-candidate Trump said publicly at a campaign event, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the more than 30,000 emails that are missing.” This was an apparent reference to Clinton emails that had been stored on a private server during the time she had served as secretary of state.

In the spring of 2016, Russian military intelligence had hacked into the computer networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Democratic National Committee. Emails and documents stolen by the Russians had already been leaked in June and July of 2016 and Trump continued to encourage more leaks as they continued throughout the campaign.

The New York Times, which first reported news of Durham’s plans to seek an indictment against Sussmann, also reported that Garland has declined to overrule Durham’s decision.

Sussmann’s legal team has communicated to Durham’s team that they believe his case will fall apart under scrutiny for several different reasons, a source said. They have noted that Sussmann’s alleged statement to Baker was made nearly five years ago and in a private meeting with no witnesses. And they argue the statements identified by Durham are immaterial in that they likely had no significant impact on any actual investigation being conducted by the FBI at the time.

In the indictment, however, prosecutors contend the statement was material “because, among other reasons, Sussmann’s false statement misled the FBI general counsel and other FBI personnel concerning the political nature of his work and deprived the FBI of information that might have permitted it more fully to assess and uncover the origins of the relevant data and technical analysis, including the identities and motivations of Sussmann’s clients.”

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Customs and Border Protection encountered over 200,000 attempted crossings in August, fewer than the two-decade high seen in July, but still far more than in past years.

While the Biden administration has asked for patience, some Republican lawmakers are sounding the alarm over what they consider a continuing crisis.

The 208,887 of apprehensions in August were fewer than in July, when 212,672 people were encountered crossing the border — eclipsing every year since 2000. But last year, CBP made 50,014 apprehensions, just a fraction of this August’s number. In 2019, there were 62,707 apprehensions and the number was even smaller — 46,719 — in 2018.

According to the data released by CBP on Wednesday, 25% of the crossings were made by people who had already been encountered — leaving 156,641 unique encounters last month.

The number of unaccompanied minors has remained steady since July, at nearly 19,000 each month. In August, more than 1,400 unaccompanied children a day, on average, were in CBP custody — up 100 from July.

CBP says fentanyl seizures rose 34%, along with a 36% increase in pounds of cocaine seized from July to August. Fentanyl seizures are also up 50% so far this year, with more than 10,000 pounds confiscated, according to the data.

Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas on Monday downplayed the numbers.

“Once again, we have a plan and we’re executing it. The situation doesn’t change with a flick of a switch, it requires a tremendous amount of work,” he said during a fireside chat with ABC News at the Homeland Security Enterprise Forum.

But ranking member on the Senate Homeland and Governmental Affairs Committee, Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, was not so optimistic.

“Once again, CBP operational statistics show that we are seeing the worst unlawful migration crisis in more than twenty years,” Portman said in a statement on Wednesday night. “The Border Patrol has now made more than a million apprehensions of unlawful migrants since President Biden took office. CBP reported more than 208,000 total encounters at the border in August, quadrupling the number from last August.”

Former President Donald Trump’s Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf warned that Border Patrol agents will soon reach their breaking point if crossings continue at the current rate.

“President Biden’s failed border-security policies are simply unsustainable. The men and women of federal law enforcement cannot continue to deal with these crisis-level numbers. They are already overwhelmed and overburdened. The breakdown is coming,” Wolf said in a statement

The administration, however, has framed the drop in encounters since July as a sign things are moving in the right direction.

“The men and women at CBP continue to step up to meet the demands of high numbers of encounters at our southern border. CBP recorded 2 percent fewer encounters in August than July,” Acting CBP Commissioner Troy Miller said in a release. “The vast majority of single adults encountered in August, along with a substantial share of families, continued to be expelled under the CDC’s Title 42 authority.”

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Following months of negotiations, House Democrats advanced critical legislation late Wednesday that will help President Joe Biden deliver on a massive $3.5 trillion human infrastructure package filled with social and progressive priorities.

Thirteen House committees spent countless hours over the week marking up legislation to meet a self-imposed Sep. 15 deadline. The bill language passed by the committees will now be drafted into a final bill that is expected to be married with the Senate’s version of the bill in the coming weeks.

The negotiations this week were not without drama, as Democrats are dealing with growing disagreements on policy between progressives and moderates in the House, as well as skeptical holdouts Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema who have concerns with overall spending.

Manchin has previously called for a “strategic pause” in moving forward with the reconciliation bill and has repeatedly said he does not support passing another multi-trillion dollar spending bill.

Biden on Wednesday held separate meetings with both Manchin and Sinema as a form of personal outreach.

“The president certainly believes there’ll be ongoing discussions,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Wednesday. “Not that there’s necessarily going to be a conclusion out of those today, but that was the primary focus and purpose of these meetings.”

The final bill will include significant new investments in health care, child care, higher education, workforce training, and paid family and medical leave which would include 12 weeks paid family and medical leave for most working Americans.

It will also include plans to permanently close the Medicaid coverage gap, expand Medicare by offering seniors access to hearing, dental and vision benefits; extend several tax credits; strengthen the Affordable Care Act, invest in maternal health, and provide additional investments in public health. It would also make major changes to immigration, climate, and tax laws.

Democrats intend to off-set the costs of the package by raising taxes on wealthy Americans, profitable corporations and investors.

The House Ways and Means Committee released a plan to raise the corporate tax rate to 26.5% for businesses earning more than $5 million in income. The corporate rate would be lowered to 18% for small businesses earning less than $400,000; all other businesses would continue to pay the current rate of 21%.

The legislation would also raise the top income tax rate to 39.6% from 37% for married couples who report taxable income of more than $450,000 and for individuals who report more than $400,000. The proposal also includes a 3% surcharge on individual income above 5% and increases the top tax rate for capital gains – the proceeds from selling an asset – to 25%, up from 20%.

It’s not clear how much revenue the tax increases could generate and whether they would fully offset the $3.5 trillion spending bill.

“I want to thank all thirteen committees given instructions in this process for reporting recommendations within their jurisdictions for the Build Back Better Act. I also want to express my gratitude and admiration for the hardworking committee staff who sacrificed sleep and, in many cases, time with their families this summer in order to make sure that this critical legislation reflects Democrats’ focus on helping Americans access opportunity and achieve real economic security. We will continue our work on this legislation in the coming days, as we take action to deliver on President Biden’s plan to Build Back Better,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said in a statement late Wednesday.

House committee chairs are expected to brief Democrats on their portions of the spending bill on Friday. The House is set to return from a six-week recess on Monday.

“This package, coupled with the bipartisan infrastructure plan, represents our firm belief that it’s not just the roads that get you to work that require funding, basic supports like child care and paid leave are also essential features of society worthy of investment. As the broader negotiations continue, I must emphasize that now is not the time to settle for less. The American people are looking to us as members of the Democratic Party to push ourselves and set the highest possible standards for what’s possible. Twelve weeks of universal paid family and medical leave, guaranteed access to child care, strong proposals to combat climate change, and responsibly funding our priorities are just some of the measures that must remain in this package and become law,” said House Ways and Means Chairman Richard E. Neal in a statement.

But serious issues remain.

A trio of moderate House Democrats came out against the drug pricing plan in Democrats’ sprawling agenda as it made its way through the House.

Reps. Kathleen Rice, Scott Peters, and Kurt Schrader on Wednesday opposed language in the House Energy and Commerce Committee that would give the federal government a greater role in negotiating drug prices. Another key House panel endorsed the drug pricing plan later Wednesday evening, but leadership may not yet have the votes to pass it as part of a larger bill.

It’s another bump in the road for leadership that underscores the challenge facing the Biden White House and the Democrats’ narrow majority.

“Polling consistently shows immense bipartisan support for Democrats’ drug price negotiation legislation, including overwhelming majorities of Republicans and independents who are fed up with Big Pharma charging Americans so much more than they charge for the same medicines overseas. Delivering lower drug costs is a top priority of the American people and will remain a cornerstone of the Build Back Better Act as work continues between the House, Senate and White House on the final bill,” Henry Connolly, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, said in a statement to ABC News.

Northeastern lawmakers are also hoping the final package repeals a cap on deductions for state and local taxes – SALT – imposed by Republicans in 2017. Rep. Tom Souzzi, D-NY, has made clear that without SALT, he’s a “no” on the overall reconciliation package.

“I have been consistent for six months: ‘No SALT, no deal’,” Suozzi said in a statement.

House Democrats have said they will pursue “meaningful” change to the $10,000 limit on the federal deduction for state and local taxes. However, repealing the cap on the write-off may primarily benefit wealthy households, opponents have said.

The measure has been a sticking point in negotiations among lawmakers in high tax states.

While Democrats don’t need GOP support to pass their $3.5 trillion spending bill, due to the reconciliation process which allows legislation to pass with a simple majority, they have to get votes from every Democratic senator and nearly every House member.

House Democrats plan to tweak their bill in the coming days ahead, but they are under a tight deadline to get agreement with the Senate so that a bill can clear both chambers. Their goal is to finish their work before Sept. 27 – when Pelosi has promised she will allow the House to begin considering a $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure bill.

Pelosi has long vowed to hold on to that bipartisan bill until the much larger, $3.5 trillion “human” infrastructure bill filled with Democratic priorities is passed first.

ABC News’ Benjamin Siegel contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Fencing outside the U.S. Capitol was reinstalled late Wednesday ahead of the “Justice for J6” rally this weekend.

The fencing erected after the Jan. 6 riot was removed in July.
Recent Stories from ABC News

“Justice for J6” is being billed by organizers as a protest for defendants who are being detained by the government in connection to the January insurrection at the Capitol.

The fencing is just the latest security measure for a rally that has some in law enforcement on high alert.

Federal law enforcement agencies have become concerned that far-right extremists, including the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys could come to Washington for the protest.

U.S. Capitol Police is the leading agency for the event.

“We are closely monitoring Sept. 18 and we are planning accordingly,” said Capitol Police Chief Tom Manger. “After Jan. 6, we made department-wide changes to the way we gather and share intelligence internally and externally. I am confident the work we are doing now will make sure our officers have what they need to keep everyone safe.”

Every available Capitol Police officer will be working and the Washington Metropolitan Police Department said they are also “fully prepared” for the protest.

“As with all First Amendment demonstrations, MPD will be monitoring and assessing the activities and planning accordingly with our federal law enforcement partners,” an MPD spokesperson said in a statement to ABC News. “MPD will have an increased presence around the city where demonstrations will be taking place and will be prepared to make street closures for public safety.”

Additionally, the FBI Washington Field Office said they are working closely with state local and federal partners.

Javed Ali, a former national counterterrorism director on the National Security Council said agencies have cause for concern.

“While the government has not yet issued threat bulletins about specific and credible plots on that day, like 6 January there may be people who attend in a highly agitated mindset and then switch quickly to violent action with little-to-no warning,” Ali said.

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas told reporters last week that information sharing is key to avoiding another incident like Jan. 6.

He said the Department of Homeland Security has increased information sharing efforts throughout the country.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Women driving hundreds of miles alone for an abortion, clinics overwhelmed with out-of-state patients, providers facing “relentless harassment” from “emboldened vigilante activities,” those are some of the impacts detailed by the federal government in new court documents since the most restrictive abortion law went into effect in Texas earlier this month.

Nearly a week after announcing a lawsuit against the state, the U.S. Department of Justice filed for an immediate injunction Tuesday to halt the enforcement of the law, known as SB8, which bars physicians from providing abortions once they detect a so-called fetal heartbeat — technically the flutter of electrical activity within the cells in an embryo. That can be seen on an ultrasound as early as six weeks into a pregnancy — before many women even know they’re pregnant.

In their latest filing, the DOJ documented the impact of the unprecedented law based on declarations from the leaders of women’s health clinics, doctors and abortion rights advocates in support of the motion for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction.

“The devastating effects warned of in the pre-enforcement litigation immediately became a reality for patients and providers in Texas,” the emergency motion states. “S.B. 8 has gravely and irreparably impaired women’s ability to exercise their constitutional right to an abortion across the State.”

Under the law, between 85% and 95% of all abortions previously provided will stop, according to the motion. One Planned Parenthood affiliate in Texas went from providing 205 abortions the week before SB8 went into effect, to 52 the week after, according to the court documents.

As a result, “Women are being forced to travel hundreds — and sometimes thousands — of miles to obtain an abortion under harrowing circumstances in the middle of a COVID surge,” the motion states.

The DOJ recounted the experience of one patient, a minor, who was allegedly raped by a family member and traveled eight hours, from Galveston, Texas, to Oklahoma, for an abortion. There is an exception under the Texas law for abortions in cases of medical emergencies, but not for cases of incest or rape.

“[Other] survivors of sexual assault have to bear the additional burden of taking time off work and arranging childcare because abortions are not available in Texas,” the motion states.

According to the court documents, one patient drove a 1,000-mile roundtrip alone “because she didn’t have paid time off work and couldn’t afford” to miss her shift. Another “piled her children into her car and drove over 15 hours overnight to obtain a medication abortion in Kansas rather than struggle to patch together the money needed for airfare and child care or remain in limbo,” Anna Rupani, co-executive director of the advocacy group Fund Texas Choice, said in her declaration.

One patient traveled six hours each way to Oklahoma alone because she was worried she would make someone liable for helping her, the court documents state. Under SB8, private citizens can sue a person they “reasonably believed” provided an illegal abortion or assisted someone in getting it in the state, such as by driving them to an appointment.

On average, patients are traveling 650 miles each way to get to abortion clinics in the Southwest, according to the DOJ. The waits and logistical hurdles in planning travel to another state “have made it such that some women are no longer eligible for a medication abortion and instead are subjected to more invasive procedural abortions,” the motion states.

SB8 not only affects Texans, but has had an “extreme impact on the rights of women in other states,” the motion argues. Clinics in nearby states, including Oklahoma, Kansas, New Mexico and Colorado, have been “overwhelmed” by an influx of Texas residents seeking abortions, with clinics in Tulsa and Oklahoma City in particular seeing an “overall staggering 646% increase” in Texan patients compared to the first six months of the year, according to the court documents.

Planned Parenthood health centers in Oklahoma are seeing scheduling backlogs of “several weeks” due to the number of Texan patients, while some clinics are simply unable to accommodate large numbers of out-of-state patients due to current demands and staffing challenges “given the current threats from S.B. 8 layered atop the challenges of hiring in a pandemic,” according to the court documents.

Abortion clinic staff have also been impacted, the DOJ argues, as SB8 has “emboldened vigilante activities” against abortion providers and staff, including yelling at, recording and trying to follow them home.”

Staff are also concerned about the threat of potential lawsuits. Whole Woman’s Health, which has 17 doctors on staff across its three abortion facilities in Texas, reported that only one doctor “unconditionally agreed to work” after the law was enacted, according to the court documents.

“For most of our physicians, the risk was too great to even come to work,” Amy Hagstrom Miller, president and CEO of Whole Woman’s Health, said in her declaration.

Some clinics risk closure for good under the law, supporters of an immediate injunction said.

“If the law remains in effect for an extended period of time, and we are only able to serve a fraction of our patients with a fraction of our staff, we will have to shutter our doors and stop providing any healthcare to the communities we serve,” Hagstrom Miller said. “I believe that, without court-ordered relief in the next couple of weeks, S.B. 8 will shutter most if not all of the remaining abortion clinics in Texas.”

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden on Wednesday expressed “great confidence” in his top military adviser, Army Gen. Mark Milley, after revelations he made secret calls to Chinese counterparts in President Donald Trump’s final days in office — and as a former official told ABC News — Milley wasn’t acting alone.

“I have great confidence in Gen. Milley,” Biden told ABC News Chief White House Correspondent Cecilia Vega, during an event at the White House.

The president’s defense of Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Trump and now under Biden, came a day after reports that a forthcoming book would reveal behind-the-scenes actions that Milley took to avoid war with China or Trump launching a nuclear strike.

But Milley was not the only top defense official to send a message to China during Trump’s final days in office, a former senior Pentagon official told ABC News.

Rather, he was actually following the lead of then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper, the official said.

Milley’s Oct. 30 conversation with his Chinese counterpart, first reported in the forthcoming book “Peril,” by Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Robert Costa, was meant to allay Chinese fears that Trump was planning a secret attack ahead of the presidential election. It was part of a coordinated effort started a week earlier by Esper, the former official said.

The outreach came as intelligence reports suggested the Chinese were increasingly concerned that Trump would launch a military strike on China.

Esper instructed another top Pentagon official, a civilian, to convey a message from Esper to his Chinese counterpart, Defense Minister Wei Fenghe, to assure him the U.S. had no intention of attacking China, the former official said.

“We saw indications the Chinese were over-reacting to rhetoric coming out of D.C.,” the former official said. “We conveyed that everything is under control, we have no plans (to attack). We didn’t want a misperception and misunderstanding or whatever, and we end up in some type of confrontation that leads to conflict.”

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff followed up this outreach with the call to his own counterpart, Gen. Li Zuocheng of the People’s Liberation Army. Esper and Milley coordinated their actions, the former official said.

“The notion that somehow Milley was rogue on diplomacy is just completely wrong,” the former official said. “It’s not how it happened. It began with (Esper) trying to make sure the United States didn’t end up at some needless confrontation with the Chinese weeks before the election.”

Esper and Milley, however, did agree not to inform U.S. national security adviser Robert O’Brien or anybody else at the White House about the conversation, according to the former official.

Woodward and Costa also reported that, after the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol by pro-Trump rioters, Milley feared Trump could “go rogue” and worried that he could stoke military conflict to cling to power and derail the peaceful transfer of power.

On Jan. 8, Milley called Li and assured him the United States was “100 percent steady” and not on the brink of collapse or war, despite the unrest in Washington, according to “Peril,” which ABC News obtained ahead of its Sept. 21 release.

During Milley’s October call with Li, Woodward and Costa reported, Milley pledged to provide the Chinese a heads up if the U.S. did plan to attack. But the former official cast doubt on whether Milley actually made that promise.

The official portrayed the call in a more mundane light, portraying it instead as an effort, through commonly used channels, to prevent any misunderstanding that would lead the Chinese to act as if an American attack was coming.

A spokesman for the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Wednesday that Milley’s conversations with his foreign military counterparts, including the Chinese, take place “regularly” and “remain vital to improving mutual understanding of U.S. national security interests, reducing tensions, providing clarity and avoiding unintended consequences or conflict.”

“His calls with the Chinese and others in October and January were in keeping with these duties and responsibilities conveying reassurance in order to maintain strategic stability,” the spokesman, Col. Dave Butler, said, not denying the reported details of the call.

The calls, Butler said, were “staffed, coordinated and communicated with the Department of Defense” and other federal government agencies.

Woodward and Costa also reported that, on Jan. 8 — two days after the Capitol riot — Milley convened a meeting at the Pentagon with military officials responsible for relaying orders for a military or nuclear strike and made clear he “must be directly involved” with the process of launching a nuclear weapon. While the authors reported the meeting was unscheduled, the former Pentagon official told ABC News the gathering was, in fact, one that had been regularly scheduled.

Butler, the spokesman for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the meeting had taken place “in light of media reporting.”

“Gen. Milley frequently conducts meetings with uniformed leaders across the Services to ensure all leaders are aware of current issues,” Butler said, referring to the different military branches. “The meeting regarding nuclear weapons protocols was to remind uniformed leaders in the Pentagon of the long-established and robust procedures in light of media reporting on the subject.”

In a statement Tuesday, Trump called Milley’s actions “treason” and Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., called on the general to resign.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki, though, on Wednesday expressed strong support for Milley.

“I can’t speak to the former president’s experience with him or the former president’s views of him, but this president, this current president, who follows the Constitution, who’s not fomenting an insurrection, who follows the rule of law,” Psaki said, “has complete confidence in Chairman Milley and him serving — continuing to serve in his role.”

The Joint Chiefs of Staff said that Milley has followed the Constitution.

“Gen. Milley continues to act and advise within his authority in the lawful tradition of civilian control of the military and his oath to the Constitution,” its spokesman, Butler, said.

Pentagon press secretary John Kirby said Wednesday he had seen “nothing in what I’ve read that would cause any concern.” Kirby said Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin had “full trust and confidence in Chairman Milley and the job that he’s doing.”

ABC News’ Benjamin Siegel, Luis Martinez and Matt Seyler contributed reporting.

Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.