Political MoJo

Prosecutors in Ohio have indicated that they will seek murder charges against Ariel Castro, the man they believe kidnapped, tortured, and imprisoned three women in his house for roughly a decade. The murder charges stem from reports that he raped, impregnated and abused one of the women, Michelle Knight, causing her to miscarry multiple pregnancies.

"I fully intend to seek charges for each and every act of sexual violence, rape, each day of kidnapping, every felonious assault, and each act of aggravated murder for terminating pregnancies that the offender perpetrated," Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Timothy McGinty said at a news conference late last week. Ohio prosecutors are assessing whether they could seek the death penalty against Castro.

Thirty-eight states have laws on the books that make killing a fetus in a violent act a separate crime from the harm done to the pregnant woman, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Ohio has had a feticide law since 1996. Although there is broad agreement on the idea that Castro should be prosecuted for his alleged crimes, the use of this type of "feticide" law makes some in the world of reproductive rights and law nervous, since these laws move toward the kind of "fetal personhood" measures that anti-abortion groups have tried to push to define a fetus as a full and separate human being.

"What Castro is accused of doing is so horrendous it defies comprehension. He allegedly forced Ms. Knight to become pregnant, and then forced her to miscarry—nobody disagrees that he should be punished for this," Farah Diaz-Tello, a staff attorney at National Advocates for Pregnant Women, told Mother Jones. "But when the law treats fertilized eggs, embryos, and fetuses as legally separate from the pregnant women who carry them, the door is open to a host of problematic consequences for pregnant women."

The concern is that this sort of law could in turn be used to prosecute women for seeking an abortion or other potential or perceived harms to a fetus. And as I've reported here before, women already have been prosecuted under this type of law in some states.

Lindsey Beyerstein has a great piece at RH Reality Check looking at the legal issues at hand in the case. Michelle Goldberg also makes an elegant argument against the murder charge at The Daily Beast:

But if he is convicted of capital murder, it will ultimately be an injustice—not to him, but to the rest of us. That's because it will mean that legally, ending a pregnancy is a greater crime than keeping three human beings locked in a squalid dungeon for a decade. Such a precedent will have implications beyond this terrible case.

Emily Bazelon made a similar point about this over at Slate. As Diaz-Tello puts it, "The acts of torture Castro allegedly committed against these three women are certainly more than enough to put him away for life without going down roads that lead to locking up pregnant women."

• Print
• Email
• Tweet

Rena Schild/Shutterstock

When Lois Lerner, a top IRS official, revealed last Friday that agency staffers had singled out conservative nonprofit groups for extra scrutiny over their potential political activities, she blamed low-level, "frontline" staffers in the agency's Cincinnati office, a hub of activity that handles tens of thousands of applications for tax-exempt status. The IRS later said no high-level officials were aware of these controversial actions.

As it turns out, the current acting IRS commissioner knew that staffers were flagging applications from certain conservative groups a year before Congress and the public found out about it. And members of Congress are steaming mad that the IRS was aware of the questionable practices of some of its staffers and didn't speak up about it. Several Republicans claim that Congress was misled by the IRS and its top brass about these actions.

The IRS said that current acting commissioner Steven Miller learned on May 3, 2012, that staffers had been picking out conservative groups for greater scrutiny than is typical. (Miller was deputy commissioner at the time.)

Yet Republican lawmakers say Miller neglected to tell Congress about the systematic singling out of conservative groups in subsequent interactions. Miller wrote two letters to Congress after his May 2012 briefing about how the IRS reviews applications for tax-exempt status, but did not mention the scrutiny of tea party groups. On July 25, 2012, Miller testified before the House ways and means oversight subcommittee on the subject of "organizational and compliance issues related to public charities." During questioning, Miller was asked about tea party groups being harassed, but not about tea partiers specifically. He did not mention having been briefed on the IRS' actions.

"It is almost inconceivable to imagine that top officials at the IRS knew conservative groups were being targeted but chose to willfully mislead the Committee's investigation into this practice," Rep. Dave Camp, chair of the ways and means committee, said in a statement.

An IRS spokesman did not respond to a request for comment.

Miller wrote in an op-ed for USA Today on Tuesday that the IRS' singling out of conservative groups showed "a lack of sensitivity to the implications of some of the decisions that were made." He added that sifting through applications for tax-exempt status was "factually complex, and it's challenging to separate out political issues from those involving education or social welfare." He did not say why he didn't tell Congress about the tea party scrutiny when he learned of it in May 2012.

Other lawmakers say they corresponded with the IRS on the tea party issue and can't understand why the agency didn't share all of what it knew. "I wrote to the IRS three times last year after hearing concerns that conservative groups were being targeted," Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), said in a statement Monday. "Yet it didn't occur to anyone at the IRS to let us know that this targeting was in fact happening? Knowing what we know now, the IRS was at best being far from forthcoming, or at worst, being deliberately dishonest with Congress. These are the facts and the questions we need answered."

They could be answered soon. On Friday, the House ways and means committee will hold a hearing on the IRS' tea party controversy. Other House and Senate committees have pledged to investigate the matter, too.

• Print
• Email
• Tweet

On Monday, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) published an op-ed on Fox News detailing his recent travels in the Rio Grande Valley, where he met an undocumented immigrant from El Salvador and visited a cemetery that houses the remains of unidentified migrants who died traversing the county's scorching canyons. "As a policymaker, I have a responsibility to find real solutions to these issues that are all-too-familiar to Texans," he writes. "Anything less only perpetuates this grotesque human tragedy playing out every day on American soil." So far so good. He also released this video, which documents his trip to the cemetery with a close-up on the details (or lack thereof) on the unmarked graves:

At this point you might think that Cornyn is taking a lead role in combating the surge in migrant deaths in South Texas. But that's where things get weird.

Cornyn's video points to the increasing number of migrant deaths in Brooks County as evidence that the border isn't really secure. That's really the opposite of what's happening. Rising migrant death totals aren't a symptom of a porous border; they're a symptom of a border that's increasingly locked-down, and a testament to more effective enforcement policies in traditional migrant corridors—a point that's made in the Washington Post story Cornyn cited in the video. The idea that tougher border security makes border crossings more dangerous is well-established (this 2009 report from the American Civil Liberties Union is instructive, as is this from the American Public Health Association). Contra Cornyn's assertion in the video, Brooks County is what a secure border looks like. That's why Coalición Derechos Humanos Arizona, which works with migrants in the Sonora desert, doesn't support the enforcement-heavy bill currently being considered in the Senate.

Cornyn did vote for a successful amendment to the Senate legislation to mandate better data collection of human trafficking, inspired by this specific case in Houston. But he's pushing for a harsher security policy that would exacerbate the problems Brooks County already faces—citing, among other things, the presence of men "wearing some form of turban" crossing into South Texas. (Cornyn has introduced his own legislation focusing exclusively on border security, which he'd like to see as a prerequisite for any kind of immigration reform.) During the committee markup, Cornyn broached the subject of Brooks County's rising toll, but only to push for reimbursement for the county. On Thursday, he voted for a proposal from Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) that would modify the Senate immigration reform bill to "strike the section that requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to issue policies governing the use of force by Department of Homeland Security personnel."

• Print
• Email
• Tweet

Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk. jdlasica/Flickr

Elon Musk, the CEO of Tesla Motors and the private space travel company SpaceX, has parted ways with FWD.us, the tech-centric political group that Facebook cofounder Mark Zuckerberg launched last month. So, too, has investor and entrepreneur David Sacks, who created the social network Yammer and financed the satiric 2005 movie Thank You for Smoking. The tech news website AllThingsD first reported the departures of Musk and Sacks, and their names have been removed from the list of nearly two-dozen "major contributors" to FWD.us.

Zuckerberg and Facebook "Causes" creator Joe Green founded FWD.us to lobby on behalf of Silicon Valley firms in Washington. They quickly earned the endorsements of a host of other tech superstars. The group—which, as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, does not have to disclose its donors—has reportedly raised more than $25 million so far. The group chose the ongoing fight over comprehensive immigration reform as its first foray into Congressional politics, seeking to expand the number of visas available to engineers and other high-skilled workers that tech companies would like to recruit. By all accounts, FWD.us' message has gotten a warm reception on Capitol Hill.

But the group caused a political firestorm recently when it ran TV advertisements praising Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) for supporting more oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. Another ad depicted Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) criticizing Obamacare and President Obama's refusal (so far) to green-light the controversial Keystone XL pipeline. FWD.us ran the ads to give Begich and Graham some political cover on immigration reform, the theory being that by touting the senators' conservative bona fides, they could give them the space to take a moderate position on an immigration reform bill. The Begich and Graham ads ran for a week and are no longer on the air. Liberal and environmental groups reacted furiously to FWD.us' conservative and anti-environmental message, protesting at Facebook's headquarters in Menlo Park, California. And last week, nine progressive groups, including MoveOn.org, Progressives United, the Sierra Club, and Daily Kos, pledged to pull down their existing paid Facebook ads or cancel future ad buys for at least two weeks.

It's not surprising that Musk would break with FWD.us. Tesla Motors builds high-end electric cars; its entire business model is built around a clean-tech economy. Musk also sits on the board of SolarCity, a company that delivers, installs, and maintains solar panels powering homes, businesses, and government offices.

Musk sent this statement to AllThingsD: "I agreed to support Fwd.us because there is a genuine need to reform immigration. However, this should not be done at the expense of other important causes. I have spent a lot of time fighting far larger lobbying organizations in DC and believe that the right way to win on a cause is to argue the merits of that cause. This statement may surprise some people, but my experience is that most (not all) politicians and their staffs want to do the right thing and eventually do."

FWD.us spokeswoman Kate Hansen emailed this statement to Mother Jones: "We recognize that not everyone will always agree with or be pleased by our strategy—and we're grateful for the continued support of our dedicated founders and major contributors. FWD.us remains totally committed to supporting a bipartisan policy agenda that will boost the knowledge economy, including comprehensive immigration reform."

• Print
• Email
• Tweet