Kate Sheppard

Kate Sheppard

Reporter

Kate Sheppard is a staff reporter in Mother Jones' Washington bureau. She was previously the political reporter for Grist and a writing fellow at The American Prospect. She can be reached by email at ksheppard (at) motherjones (dot) com.

Full Bio | Get my RSS |

Her work has also been featured in the New York Times' Room for Debate blog, the Guardian's Comment Is Free, Foreign Policy, High Country News, The Center for Public Integrity, the Washington Independent, Washington Spectator, Who Runs Gov, In These Times, and Bitch. She was raised on a vegetable farm in southern New Jersey (yes, they do exist), but has adapted well to life in the nation's capital. She misses trees and having a congressional representative with voting power, but thinks DC is pretty great anyway.

Exploding Trains, Explained

| Thu May. 30, 2013 9:34 AM PDT
Fifteen train cars derailed in an industrial area in Rosedale, Maryland, causing an explosion and the collapse of several buildings.

A train and a garbage truck collided outside of Baltimore on Tuesday evening, resulting in a large explosion that released smoke that could be seen miles away. CSX, the train's operator, confirmed that the train was carrying hazardous chemicals that caused the explosion. The Washington Post reports:

CSX spokesman Gary Sease said the sodium chlorate in a derailed car near the front of the train exploded, igniting terephthalic acid in another derailed car. Sodium chlorate is used mainly as a bleaching agent in paper production. Oklahoma State University chemist Nick Materer said it could make for a potentially explosive mixture when combined with an incompatible substance such as spilled fuel.
Another chemist, Darlene Lyudmirskiy, of Spectrum Chemical Manufacturing Corp. in Gardena, Calif., said such a mixture would be unstable and wouldn’t need even a spark to cause a reaction.
"If it's not compatible, anything could set it off," she said.

The incident could have been much worse if other chemicals had been involved—chemicals like chlorine gas or anhydrous ammonia. When a Norfolk Southern train derailed in Graniteville, South Carolina, in 2005 and released chlorine, nine people died and 5,000 had to be evacuated. While not nearly that bad, the Baltimore explosion has brought renewed attention to the hazardous chemicals that are transported by rail in the United States.

Trains carry  64 percent of a class of chemicals known as "toxic inhalation hazards."

In 2012, trains carried 189 million tons of chemicals. That only represents about 20 percent of all the chemicals shipped in the US. But trains carry 64 percent of a class of chemicals known as "toxic inhalation hazards" or TIH, like chlorine, that can be deadly if inhaled. Rail is the safest, most efficient way to transport those chemicals—one rail tank can carry as much as four trucks, and trains moving along a dedicated shipping line rather than on the highways, meaning that collisions are less likely, as researchers at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government have pointed out.

Even if rail is safer than trucks, there are plenty of reasons to want to limit the amount of dangerous chemicals carried by rail. There's always a chance of an accident, as Tuesday's explosion demonstrated, and local governments and first responders don't even know what's traveling on those trains until an accident happens. Then there's also the threat of a deliberate attack on either the rails or the chemical facilities where the tankers eventually end up. The best solution, says Greenpeace legislative director Rick Hind, is getting companies to shift from a "catastrophic chemical to a noncatastrophic substance or process"—that is, using chemicals that won't explode or give off noxious fumes. These chemicals would be safer to transport, and safer to use when they reach their destinations.

Some companies and municipal water systems have already started phasing out the use of deadly chemicals like chlorine. But it would take a stronger regulatory push to make a larger switch happen. There was some effort to do so immediately after September 11, at the height of terrorism fears. But the Bush White House did not back it due to pressure from the chemical industry, recalls Bob Bostock, the homeland security adviser to the then-EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman. "That effort died before it really got started," he says.

Now Bostock hopes that the EPA will use its regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act to "to require facilities to at least evaluate safer technologies." "It's very feasible to do so," he says. "A lot of facilities have done it. A lot have not."

Railroad operators aren't particularly jazzed about transporting hazardous chemicals, either. But because a few companies control the majority of major railroads, they are required under federal "common carrier" rules that say they can't refuse to carry TIH or other hazardous chemicals. The Association of American Railroads, the industry trade group, has asked Congress to allow them to "decide for themselves whether to accept, and at what price they are willing to accept, such materials for transportation." AAR has also called for safer alternatives to hazardous chemicals as a means of reducing their own risk as carriers.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

ACLU Takes On Arizona's Ban on Sex- and Race-Selective Abortions

| Wed May. 29, 2013 2:03 PM PDT

The American Civil Liberties Union announced on Wednesday that it is filing suit against Arizona's law that aims to ban abortions based on gender preference or race. The law, passed in March 2011, "treats every black and Asian women as potential threat simply because of her race alone," said Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, staff attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, at a press event announcing the lawsuit.

The ACLU's suit is on behalf of the NAACP and the National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum, who argue that the law is an unconstitutional intrusion into a woman's right to choose and that it asks doctors to profile based on the race of the woman seeking an abortion. Daniel Pochoda, legal director of the ACLU of Arizona said the law is "motivated by racist and discriminatory beliefs." It would encourage discrimination against Asian American women based on cultural assumptions that they might seek to abort a female fetus. Doctors would also be required to racially profile any woman of color seeking an abortion, since she would most definitely be carrying a fetus of color. This pretty much amounts to a thought-crime, forcing medical professionals to somehow determine a woman's motivation for getting an abortion or potentially end up in jail for 3 and a half years.

The law "perpetuates ugly stereotypes about the Asian American community and contributes to anti-immigrant perceptions," said Miriam Yeung, executive director of the National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum. And if politicians are actually concerned about sex-selective abortions, Yeung says, this is not the way to deal with them. "We care about gender inequity and we care about women," said Yeung. "The thing is, if these politicians really wanted to truly address the issue—and sex-selection is really a symptom of gender inequity—there are more effective ways of doing that. This bill is not that."

At least nine other states and the House of Representatives have considered banning abortions based on sex or race.

Indiana's Effort to Defund Planned Parenthood Is Dead

| Tue May. 28, 2013 9:39 AM PDT

Memorial Day heralds two things in Washington: the return of seersucker suits and Supreme Court decision season. On Tuesday, the high court announced that it would not be hearing Indiana's appeal in defense of its effort to defund Planned Parenthood.

Back in 2011, Indiana voted to block Medicaid funds from being used at Planned Parenthood clinics or any facility that provides abortions. State lawmakers exempted hospitals and surgical facilities, which made it pretty clear that they were going directly after Planned Parenthood. (Several other states have passed similar laws targeting the group.) The federal government blocked Indiana's action because it is against the law to discriminate against specific health care providers. The Obama administration and Planned Parenthood won in court last year, but Indiana had asked the Supreme Court to hear the case.

The Los Angeles Times reported this morning on the court's decision to decline to hear the case:

Without comment, the justices turned away Indiana’s defense of a 2011 law that would ban all Medicaid funds to an organization such as Planned Parenthood whose work includes performing abortions.
The high court let stand decisions by a federal judge in Indiana and the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago that blocked the measure from taking effect. The "defunding law excludes Planned Parenthood from Medicaid for a reason unrelated to its fitness to provide medical services, violating its patients’ statutory right to obtain medical care from the qualified provider of their choice," Judge Diane Sykes said last year for the 7th Circuit.

Progess on Chemical Regulation, At Last?

| Fri May. 24, 2013 8:23 AM PDT

A bit of positive news this week may have gotten lost in the shuffle. On Wednesday, two senators announced bipartisan legislation to fix our nation's outdated and ineffective chemical regulations. New Jersey Democrat Frank Lautenberg and Louisiana Republican David Vitter announced an agreement to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), a 37-year-old law governing the use of tens of thousands of hazardous chemicals. I've written before about how the law's failures have left dangerous chemicals largely unregulated.

That these two lawmakers agreed on the new legislation, dubbed the Chemical Safety Improvement Act of 2013, is a big deal. Lautenberg has made strengthening TSCA one of his legacy issues in the Senate, from which he is retiring in 2015. Vitter is known as a industry booster how has blocked progress on chemicals in the past.

The bill would, for the first time, require the EPA review the safety of all chemicals used in products, whereas TSCA grandfathered in a lot of chemicals without testing their safety. It would also make it harder for companies to claim "confidential business information" as an excuse for not disclosing what's in their products. TSCA reform advocates will note that this latest bill is not as tough as the Safe Chemicals Act that Lautenberg had previously championed. The Environmental Working Group slammed the proposal as "unacceptably weak" and listed the areas where it falls short.

But others see the agreement as movement in the right direction. As Richard Denison, a senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, told Energy & Environment Daily:

"I've worked for a number of years trying to improve a statute and a program that is hamstrung at every turn by that statute," Denison said. "My reference point is whether this bill improves EPA's ability to work relative to current TSCA. And there's no question that it does.
"If one measures it against an ideal, the kind of bill I'd write if I were king, then this doesn't meet all the criteria," he added. "But this bill has a higher likelihood of passing."
Fri Dec. 7, 2012 4:03 AM PST
Thu Dec. 6, 2012 3:07 PM PST
Thu Dec. 6, 2012 2:08 PM PST
Thu Dec. 6, 2012 4:13 AM PST
Tue Dec. 4, 2012 4:39 PM PST
Fri Nov. 30, 2012 10:12 AM PST
Thu Nov. 29, 2012 4:08 AM PST
Wed Nov. 28, 2012 11:04 AM PST
Wed Nov. 21, 2012 10:47 AM PST
Tue Nov. 20, 2012 11:42 AM PST
Thu Nov. 15, 2012 1:55 PM PST
Mon Nov. 12, 2012 4:08 AM PST
Fri Nov. 9, 2012 2:11 PM PST
Thu Nov. 8, 2012 4:06 PM PST
Thu Nov. 8, 2012 12:48 PM PST
Wed Nov. 7, 2012 12:23 AM PST
Tue Nov. 6, 2012 10:48 PM PST
Wed Oct. 31, 2012 10:26 AM PDT
Tue Oct. 30, 2012 2:08 PM PDT
Wed Oct. 24, 2012 3:03 AM PDT
Tue Oct. 23, 2012 11:36 AM PDT
Tue Oct. 23, 2012 9:05 AM PDT
Fri Oct. 19, 2012 4:02 PM PDT
Tue Oct. 16, 2012 2:18 PM PDT