Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me.
Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me. | Opinion The Trump administration does not care about what is medically necessary to save someone's life. They care about controlling women. Why would anybody want to have a child under that way of thinking?
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Trump rescinds Biden-era emergency abortion care guidance
The Trump administration rescinded guidance clarifying that hospitals in abortion-ban states must treat pregnant patients during medical emergencies.
unbranded - Newsworthy
Despite declarations that something needs to be done about the declining birth rate in the United States, neither President Donald Trump nor the Republican Party has the desire to protect pregnant people. If they did, the Trump administration wouldn't have made its latest move to restrict abortion nationwide.
On Tuesday, June 3, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services rescinded a Biden-era policy that directed hospitals to provide emergency abortions if it was needed to stabilize a pregnant patient. The guidance and communications on it apparently 'do not reflect the policy of this Administration.'
I, like many people who support abortion rights, know what this will lead to. It means more pregnant people will die.
Does that reflect the policy of the administration?
Having a baby in America is dangerous. Republicans aren't helping.
The Biden policy was implemented in 2022, following the fall of Roe v. Wade, and argued that hospitals receiving Medicare funding had to comply with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA).
The former administration argued that this included providing emergency abortions when they were needed to stabilize a patient, even in states that had severe abortion restrictions.
Opinion: A brain dead pregnant Georgia woman is a horror story. It's Republicans' fault.
This wasn't entirely a surprise. In 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas could ban virtually all abortions in the state, including abortions that would have occurred under the old EMTALA guidelines.
Still, it's terrifying to see this crucial policy eliminated.
It's already dangerous to be pregnant in the United States. Our maternal mortality rate is much higher than in other wealthy countries. Same with our infant mortality rate. This will only exacerbate these tragedies.
In states with abortion bans, the risks are even greater. A study from the Gender Equity Policy Institute found that people living in states with abortion bans were twice as likely to die during or shortly after childbirth. This is also backed by anecdotal evidence, including the 2022 deaths of two women in Georgia after the state passed a six-week ban.
A different study found that infant mortality rates increased in states with severe restrictions on abortion, including an increase in deaths due to congenital anomalies.
The Trump administration does not care about what is medically necessary to save someone's life. They don't care about whether the children supposedly saved by rescinding this policy will grow up without their mother. They care about their perceived moral superiority. They care about controlling women.
Why would anybody want to have a child under that Republican way of thinking?
Opinion: We're worrying about the wrong thing. Low birth rate isn't the crisis: Child care is.
None of this is surprising from Republicans. It's just sad.
I want to say I'm surprised that the Trump administration would allow women in need of emergency care to die.
Yet this is clearly aligned with the Republican stance on abortion, just like it's aligned with the actions that the party has taken to make it harder for women to access necessary care.
Whether you like it or not, abortion is a necessary part of health care. It saves lives. Alexis McGill Johnson, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood, laid it out plainly.
'Women have died because they couldn't get the lifesaving abortion care they needed,' she said in a statement. 'The Trump administration is willing to let pregnant people die, and that is exactly what we can expect."
Again, this is the administration that wants young women like me to have children and improve the country's birth rate. This is an administration that claims to care about women and children. I know I wouldn't want to have a child while Trump continues to make it unsafe to be pregnant and give birth.
I hate that this is the reality.
Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter, @sara__pequeno
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
12 minutes ago
- Atlantic
Inside the Trump-Musk Breakup
For once, President Donald Trump was trying to be the adult in the room. Trump and Elon Musk, two billionaires with massive egos and combustible temperaments, had forged an unlikely friendship over the past year, one built on proximity, political expediency, and, yes, a touch of genuine warmth. Relations between the president and his top benefactor had grown somewhat strained in recent weeks, as Trump began to feel that Musk had overstayed his welcome in the West Wing. Musk had suggested privately that he could stay on at the White House, an offer that Trump gently declined, two people familiar with the situation told us. (They, like others we talked with for this story, spoke anonymously in order to share candid details about a sensitive feud.) But Musk was still given a gracious send-off last Friday—complete with a large golden, albeit ceremonial, key—aimed at keeping the mercurial tech baron more friend than foe. The peace didn't last even a week. On Tuesday, Musk took to X to attack the Republican spending bill being debated in the Senate, trashing Trump's signature piece of legislation as 'a disgusting abomination.' Even as the White House tried to downplay any differences, Musk couldn't let go of his grievances—the exclusion of electric-vehicle tax credits from the bill, and Trump's rejection of Musk's pick to run NASA. Yesterday, the planet's richest man attacked its most powerful. Each took aim at the other from their respective social-media platform, forcing rubberneckers into a madcap toggle between Truth Social and X. Trump deemed his former aide 'CRAZY,' while Musk went much further, dramatically escalating the feud by calling for Trump's impeachment, suggesting that the president had been part of Jeffrey Epstein's notorious sex-trafficking ring, and—likely worst of all in Trump's mind—taking credit for the president's election in November. Charlie Warzel: The Super Bowl of internet beefs For one day, Musk made X great again. The spectacle seemed to subside today, as Trump showed—at least by his standards—some restraint. The president insisted that he was not thinking about Musk and wanted only to pass the reconciliation bill that had featured in the brawl. Musk, meanwhile, has far more to lose: his newfound stardom within the MAGA movement, his personal wealth, and government contracts worth billions to his businesses. Steven Bannon, the influential Trump adviser who has long been critical of Musk, crowed that the tech billionaire's attacks on Trump were so personal that he won't be forgiven by the MAGA crowd. 'Only the fanboys are going to stick with him—he's a man without a country,' Bannon told us. Trump and Musk were inseparable during the transition and in the first months after the inauguration. At times, Musk stayed over in the White House residence, regaling reporters with tales of late-night Häagen-Dazs ice-cream binges (caramel flavor) in the White House kitchen. He grew close to Trump's powerful adviser Stephen Miller and to Miller's wife, Katie, who'd entered the administration as a special government employee alongside Musk; the trio socialized outside work. (Musk has since unfollowed Stephen Miller on X.) Musk's 5-year-old son, X, became a frequent visitor to the Oval Office and Mar-a-Lago, at times scampering around the tables at Trump's private club. But friction mounted over time: a West Wing shouting match between Musk and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, a heated Cabinet meeting about job cuts, clashes with senior White House staffers. Trump grew angry that Musk was bad-mouthing his tariff plan to CEOs, and was especially incensed when The New York Times reported in March that Musk was scheduled to receive a classified briefing at the Pentagon about China; the president began quietly telling confidants last month that he was getting tired of the Tesla chief. The cuts forced by Musk's Department of Government Efficiency—symbolized by Musk wielding a gold-plated chain saw at the Conservative Political Action Conference—angered even some Republicans, who depended on the government services DOGE was slashing. Trump initially bought into Musk's claim that DOGE would find $2 trillion in cuts, two advisers told us. But the potential savings shrank as the chaos grew, and Trump became disillusioned 'Trump started off as more than enamored, then it faded when it turned out the trillion dollars in DOGE cuts was bullshit,' Bannon told us. 'Trump was like, Okay.' Musk's 130-day tenure as a special government employee expired late last month. Despite growing disenchanted with Washington, he suggested to the White House that he wanted to stay on, the two advisers told us. Trump declined. A representative for Musk did not respond to requests for comment. 'Trump was like, You know, he's been around long enough, but he was not mad, not like, Screw this guy,' one of the advisers told us. 'It was like, It's probably time to turn the page.' The White House built Musk a dignified off-ramp, with aides putting together an exit plan that would allow Musk to leave the team on good terms. White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles had often found herself in the unenviable position of trying to manage Musk—a man Trump privately described as part genius, part child. But in the hours before his departure, Musk was dealt a disappointment over a government job that was very important to SpaceX. Trump had announced Jared Isaacman, an aviation entrepreneur and a Musk ally, as his pick for NASA administrator in early December. But Isaacman faced opposition on Capitol Hill, and the scheduling of his confirmation vote forced the issue last week. Trump, after hearing senators' complaints, asked Sergio Gor, the personnel director who had previously clashed with Musk, for Isaacman's vetting files. The White House was unhappy about the nominee's previous donations to Democrats, a White House official told us, and his nomination was withdrawn. David A. Graham: Elon Musk goes nuclear At the same time, Musk took aim at the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that encapsulated the entirety of the Republican legislative agenda. He privately lobbied Trump, Wiles, and House Speaker Mike Johnson to include an EV tax credit and then publicly torched the bill when they didn't, posting on Tuesday to his 220 million X followers: 'Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong.' The split has forced Republicans in Congress to choose between a president who demands their loyalty and a billionaire who helped fund their victory last year (and who could finance their opponents' campaigns, if he chooses to). Some rushed to proclaim their neutrality. 'I learned a long time ago when I was fighting to stay out of other people's fights,' Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma, a Trump ally, posted yesterday on X. (A former wrestler, Mullin had a brief professional career in mixed martial arts.) Other Republicans assumed the posture of a child begging their warring parents to get along for the sake of the family. Representative Beth Van Duyne began a post on X, 'We have the best chance to save America, save the world, and bring lasting prosperity.' Then she dropped the politesse: 'WE ARE STRONGER TOGETHER!! CEASE FIRE FOR GOD'S SAKE!' For GOP leaders, the choice seems to be an easy one: They have stuck with Trump, fiercely defending the bill they wrote on his behalf and are rushing to enact before the self-imposed July 4 deadline. After Musk took credit for the party's majorities in Congress as part of his X tirade yesterday, Johnson told reporters that the glory belonged not to Musk, but to the president. A few House conservatives seized on Musk's complaints about the deficit-busting nature of the bill and suggested that they might reconsider their support if the Senate does not improve the legislation. 'He made the biggest mistake in Washington,' a Republican strategist who requested anonymity to speak frankly told us. 'He told the truth. He is not wrong, even if he is annoying.' But Musk might have overplayed his hand in pivoting from policy to personal attacks on the president. 'He hasn't moved a vote,' House Majority Leader Steve Scalise told reporters, according to NBC News. Perhaps realizing that he was destined to lose a fight he'd started, Musk appeared to cool off late yesterday, approvingly quoting social-media posts about stopping the fight and saying that he would not follow through on his threat to decommission SpaceX's Dragon spaceships, which are used to transport NASA astronauts and supplies to and from the International Space Station. He might have 38 billion reasons for seeking détente: That's the number of dollars his companies are believed to receive in government contracts, deals that could be canceled by a vengeful president. Musk spent nearly $300 million supporting Trump and other Republicans in the 2024 presidential election, but slumping Tesla sales worldwide—due, in large part, to anger about his alliance with Trump—are estimated to have cost him well over $100 billion since he took his government post. Tesla stock fell 14 percent the day of Musk's fight with Trump. As of early this afternoon, Trump had not posted again about the feud. He gave brief interviews to a few reporters in which he insisted that he was not thinking about Musk, though he referred to his once–top aide as 'the man who has lost his mind' to ABC News. Trump allies circulated to reporters allegations of Musk's drug use recently aired by The New York Times ('I think the ketamine finally rotted his brain,' one told us; Musk has disputed the Times report). White House aides, stung by Musk's eruption yesterday, let it be known that Trump has no intention of speaking to Musk today and that the president plans to sell or give away the Tesla he'd bought back in March as a show of support for Musk. Asked for comment on the breakup, White House Spokesperson Karoline Leavitt did not mention Musk, saying instead that the administration will 'continue the important mission of cutting waste, fraud, and abuse from our federal government' and that 'the One Big Beautiful Bill is critical to helping accomplish that mission.' Musk typically averages about 100 X posts a day. But through the afternoon today, he's posted only a handful, all promotions of his various businesses. None were about Trump.
New York Post
12 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump's immigration, trade policies could cost tourism industry $12B: report
The US economy could lose out on billions of dollars this year as President Trump's policies hamper the tourism industry, according to a report. The administration's mass deportation efforts, costly trade war, anti-LGBTQ legislation and, most recently, a travel ban on 12 countries have hammered foreign arrivals and spurred anti-US boycotts. The backlash from foreign visitors is expected to cost the US economy a whopping $12.5 billion this year, according to the World Travel & Tourism Council. Advertisement However, the organization's estimates have been vastly off the mark in the past. It predicted that growth in the country's travel sector would slow significantly in 2017 after Trump's surprising first election victory, but the number of visitors actually jumped amid a worldwide upswing in tourism. 3 The US economy could lose out on billions of dollars this year as the tourism sector is hammered by policy changes. AP Though Trump has made clear his frustrations with the trade deficit, the projected decline in tourism would only worsen the issue, as spending by foreign visitors in the US is counted toward our exports, according to a Bloomberg report. Advertisement The White House did not immediately respond to The Post's request for comment. Foreign arrivals to the US by air have plunged 2.5% so far this year through April compared to the year before, according to the US International Trade Administration. The largest drop came in March, when arrivals fell 10% after Trump unveiled hefty tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico. Those tariffs, combined with Trump's call to annex Canada as the 51st state, have prompted frustrated Canadians to call for a travel boycott and to stop buying US products. Advertisement Figures on Canadian tourism have not been released by the US yet, but Canada's statistics bureau said trips across the border tumbled 15% in April for the third straight month of decline. Research firms have scaled back their expectations for US tourism this year since Trump took office. Tourism Economics now expects just 66 million visitors – above previous expectations of 79 million – as policy changes prompt travelers to book trips elsewhere, according to Bloomberg. 3 Venezuelan migrants arrive after being deported from the United States at Simon Bolivar International Airport. REUTERS The largest reversal will likely come from Canadians, with visits expected to plunge 20% this year, followed by a nearly 6% drop from western Europe, Tourism Economics said. Advertisement Air carriers like Air France, British Airways and Lufthansa have started to cancel long-haul flights to popular US cities while travel sites like Airbnb, and Expedia have warned that their earnings could be hit hard this year. At least a dozen foreign nations have advised their citizens to use caution when traveling to the US due to the risk of being detained by immigration officials. Others have warned transgender and nonbinary citizens that they could run into trouble using their passports after Trump signed an executive order recognizing 'male' and 'female' as the only two sexes. Global air bookings to the US from May 1 to July 31 are 11% lower than the same time last year, according to Tourism Economics. 3 President Trump departing the White House on Friday for a weekend trip to New Jersey. Getty Images And it's the first year that spending by overseas visitors is expected to fall since the pandemic, with a projected 7% dip to less than $169 billion, according to WTTC. The US is the only economy expected to suffer a tourism revenue decline this year out of the nearly 200 economies tracked by the WTTC.
Politico
16 minutes ago
- Politico
Newsom floats withholding federal taxes as Trump threatens California
SACRAMENTO, California — Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday suggested California consider withholding tens of billions in annual federal tax dollars amid reports Donald Trump is preparing funding cuts targeting the state. Newsom's suggestion came after CNN reported the president was considering a 'full termination' of federal grant funding for California's universities. 'Californians pay the bills for the federal government. We pay over $80 BILLION more in taxes than we get back,' the Democratic governor said in an X post Friday afternoon, referencing a recent analysis from the Rockefeller Institute that California contributed about $83 billion more in federal taxes in 2022 than it received back from Washington. 'Maybe it's time to cut that off,' he added. White House spokesperson Kush Desai, asked to comment on Newsom's post, threw cold water on mass funding cuts but blasted California for what he said were 'lunatic anti-energy, soft-on-crime, pro-child mutilation, and pro-sanctuary policies.' 'The Trump administration is committed to ending this nightmare and restoring the California Dream,' Desai said in a statement. 'No final decisions, however, on any potential future action by the Administration have been made, and any discussion suggesting otherwise should be considered pure speculation.' Trump has wielded federal funding as leverage to push its politics on California before. The president last month threatened to choke off the state's cash flow if a transgender athlete participated in a state girls' track meet. Newsom's biting suggestion comes as the governor escalates his anti-Trump rhetoric, even as he asks the White House for economic assistance. Newsom in early May blamed tariffs for ripping $16 billion from California's state budget, but has at the same time sought federal disaster relief for the recent Los Angeles wildfires and privately consulted Trump officials about ways to bolster the state's flagging film industry. Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas also floated withholding federal taxes Friday in a post on the social media site Bluesky shortly before Newsom raised the issue. He dismissed the rumored grant cancellations as 'unconstitutional and vindictive.' 'We're the nation's economic engine and the largest donor state, and deserve our fair share,' Rivas wrote. 'I'll use every legal and constitutional tool available to defend CA — we must look at every option, including withholding federal taxes.' State Senate Pro Tem Mike McGuire similarly vowed to defend California from 'this President's illegal and unprecedented attack on our state' in an X post Friday, but he stopped short of suggesting the state should withhold federal taxes. State leaders have tried to starve Trump's Washington of tax revenues before; in 2017, then-Senate President Kevin de León proposed a state tax credit scheme that would have allowed residents to sidestep a federal tax hike targeting California. Two New York mayoral candidates, former state Assemblymember Michael Blake and current state Sen. Jessica Ramos, similary suggested withholding the city's federal tax dollars during a Democratic primary debate Wednesday evening.
