Latest news with #Bruenig
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
The Atlantic 's July Cover Story: Elizabeth Bruenig's 'Witness,' on Sin and Redemption in America's Death Chambers
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. 'Capital punishment operates according to an emotional logic,' staff writer Elizabeth Bruenig writes in her July cover story for The Atlantic. 'Vengeance is elemental. Injustice cries out for redress. Murder is the most horrifying of crimes, and it seems only fitting to pair it with the most horrifying of punishments.' But as a Christian—embracing the doctrine that we're all sinners in need of redemption—Bruenig explains that she is interested in forgiveness and mercy, which are 'some of my faith's most stringent dictates. If those forms of compassion are possible for murderers, then they're possible for everyone.' For her first Atlantic cover story, Bruenig draws on the past five years of her reporting on death row. Bruenig has witnessed five executions of death-row inmates, and has also helped bring attention to the prevalence of botched executions: that is, the seeming inability of executioners in some states to kill the condemned humanely. Further, she has formed relationships, even friendships, with prisoners awaiting execution. In 2023, Bruenig was named a Pulitzer finalist for her reporting on Alabama's death row. Alabama has now banned Bruenig from its prisons. In an editor's note to lead the issue, also published today, The Atlantic's editor in chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, writes that Bruenig 'possesses an almost-otherworldly toughness that has allowed her to witness, again and again, the unnatural act of state-sanctioned killing,' adding that Bruenig 'does not flinch from any of the ugliness of capital punishment, and, crucially, she does not flinch from the appalling crimes committed by so many of the men on death row.' Goldberg continues: 'For understandable reasons, people turn away from the subject of capital punishment. But Liz has done a remarkable thing here—she has written a propulsive narrative about redemption and sin and invested her story with humanity and grace.' Also accompanying the article is a series of original paintings by The Atlantic's creative director, Peter Mendelsund, including a striking cover image of a corridor leading to an execution chamber, and a prisoner lying on the table within it. When she witnessed her first execution, Bruenig writes: 'The only certainty I had going into the Indiana death chamber in December 2020 was the simple sense that it's generally wrong to kill people, even bad people. What I witnessed on this occasion and the ones that came after has not changed my conviction that capital punishment must end. But in sometimes-unexpected ways, it has changed my understanding of why.' Bruenig writes that 'capital punishment as an institution relies on judgment at every level: judgment about guilt, about fairness, about proportion, about pain and cruelty, about the possibility of redemption. Judgment about how to carry out a death sentence and how to behave as one does so. And then there is the judgment that must be directed at oneself and one's community—the distant, sometimes-forgotten participants. In all of this, I see the arc of my own evolving comprehension.' The cover story also addresses how these questions have touched her own family's life: When Bruenig's sister-in-law was murdered, nearly a decade ago, her husband and father-in-law both stood opposed to the death penalty. (The killer was ultimately sentenced to 40 years in prison.) 'Choosing mercy is the moral path even in the hardest cases—even if you believe that some people deserve execution,' Bruenig writes, 'and even if you know for a fact that the person in question is guilty and unrepentant.' She writes: 'To default to mercy is to impose limitations on one's own power to retaliate, and to acknowledge our flawed nature. To a Christian, mercy derives from charity. And in the liminal space where families of murder victims are recruited into the judicial process—to either bless or condemn a prosecutor's intentions—showing mercy is an especially heroic decision. To think this way is to understand that the moral dimension of capital punishment is not just about what we do to others. It's also about what we do to ourselves.' Elizabeth Bruenig's '' was published today at Please reach out with any questions or requests to interview Bruenig on her reporting. Press contacts: Anna Bross and Paul Jackson | The Atlantic press@ Article originally published at The Atlantic
Atlantic
9 hours ago
- Atlantic
's July Cover Story: Elizabeth Bruenig's 'Witness,' on Sin and Redemption in America's Death Chambers
'Capital punishment operates according to an emotional logic,' staff writer Elizabeth Bruenig writes in her July cover story for The Atlantic. 'Vengeance is elemental. Injustice cries out for redress. Murder is the most horrifying of crimes, and it seems only fitting to pair it with the most horrifying of punishments.' But as a Christian—embracing the doctrine that we're all sinners in need of redemption—Bruenig explains that she is interested in forgiveness and mercy, which are 'some of my faith's most stringent dictates. If those forms of compassion are possible for murderers, then they're possible for everyone.' For her first Atlantic cover story, Bruenig draws on the past five years of her reporting on death row. Bruenig has witnessed five executions of death-row inmates, and has also helped bring attention to the prevalence of botched executions: that is, the seeming inability of executioners in some states to kill the condemned humanely. Further, she has formed relationships, even friendships, with prisoners awaiting execution. In 2023, Bruenig was named a Pulitzer finalist for her reporting on Alabama's death row. Alabama has now banned Bruenig from its prisons. In an editor's note to lead the issue, also published today, The Atlantic 's editor in chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, writes that Bruenig 'possesses an almost-otherworldly toughness that has allowed her to witness, again and again, the unnatural act of state-sanctioned killing,' adding that Bruenig 'does not flinch from any of the ugliness of capital punishment, and, crucially, she does not flinch from the appalling crimes committed by so many of the men on death row.' Goldberg continues: 'For understandable reasons, people turn away from the subject of capital punishment. But Liz has done a remarkable thing here—she has written a propulsive narrative about redemption and sin and invested her story with humanity and grace.' Also accompanying the article is a series of original paintings by The Atlantic 's creative director, Peter Mendelsund, including a striking cover image of a corridor leading to an execution chamber, and a prisoner lying on the table within it. When she witnessed her first execution, Bruenig writes: 'The only certainty I had going into the Indiana death chamber in December 2020 was the simple sense that it's generally wrong to kill people, even bad people. What I witnessed on this occasion and the ones that came after has not changed my conviction that capital punishment must end. But in sometimes-unexpected ways, it has changed my understanding of why.' Bruenig writes that 'capital punishment as an institution relies on judgment at every level: judgment about guilt, about fairness, about proportion, about pain and cruelty, about the possibility of redemption. Judgment about how to carry out a death sentence and how to behave as one does so. And then there is the judgment that must be directed at oneself and one's community—the distant, sometimes-forgotten participants. In all of this, I see the arc of my own evolving comprehension.' The cover story also addresses how these questions have touched her own family's life: When Bruenig's sister-in-law was murdered, nearly a decade ago, her husband and father-in-law both stood opposed to the death penalty. (The killer was ultimately sentenced to 40 years in prison.) 'Choosing mercy is the moral path even in the hardest cases—even if you believe that some people deserve execution,' Bruenig writes, 'and even if you know for a fact that the person in question is guilty and unrepentant.' She writes: 'To default to mercy is to impose limitations on one's own power to retaliate, and to acknowledge our flawed nature. To a Christian, mercy derives from charity. And in the liminal space where families of murder victims are recruited into the judicial process—to either bless or condemn a prosecutor's intentions—showing mercy is an especially heroic decision. To think this way is to understand that the moral dimension of capital punishment is not just about what we do to others. It's also about what we do to ourselves.' Press contacts: Anna Bross and Paul Jackson | The Atlantic
Los Angeles Times
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Medicaid rule proposal may deal a blow to California
WASHINGTON — How can Congress cut Medicaid without explicitly cutting Medicaid? That has been a years-long dilemma facing fiscal conservatives in the Republican Party who have sought cuts to the country's deficit-driving social safety net programs, including Medicaid, Social Security and Medicare, without generating political fallout from the tens of millions of Americans who will suffer the consequences. Now, GOP lawmakers have settled on a strategy, outlined in legislation expected to pass the House in the coming days amid ongoing negotiations over the package that President Trump is calling his 'Big Beautiful Bill.' Rather than lowering the income eligibility limit for coverage — an old policy proposal that would cut off Americans at the higher end of the eligibility range — Trump's bill will instead require applicants to provide proof of their work hours and apply for specific exceptions, creating new barriers for individuals to maintain insurance. House passage of the bill is far from assured, and the Senate will still have its say. But if it does become law, the policy would affect more than 71 million of the poorest Americans, more of whom live in California than any other state. If everyone eligible under the new work requirements were to apply for and receive Medicaid coverage, the cost savings to the government would be minimal. But the barriers themselves are the point, making it more likely that people with a right to Medicaid won't ultimately receive it, experts said. 'If you want to make a substantial cut to the program, how do you do that in a systematic way?' said Matt Bruenig, founder of People's Policy Project and a former lawyer at the National Labor Relations Board. 'With the work requirements, the number of people who seem to be actually ineligible because of it is quite small — so if it actually is perfectly administrated, you're not going to see a whole lot of savings,' Bruenig said. 'But if it's not well administrated and it creates all these problems, then you could see significant savings.' Existing government programs, such as Social Security, unemployment and supplemental nutrition assistance for women, infants and children, determine eligibility for those benefits based on an individual's income. But creating a new set of criteria for Medicaid based on hours worked will require a new reporting system that is not outlined in the bill. 'We have all these systems that are based around making sure people have the earnings that they can report to all these agencies, but you don't really report hours in any context,' Bruenig added. 'Monthly hours — that's just not a thing. And it's not clear how that's going to work, at all.' Trump and members of the House Freedom Caucus, a group of Republican fiscal hawks, have argued for a strict hourly work requirement to eliminate 'waste, fraud and abuse' in Medicaid by cutting off unproductive individuals from government benefits. But exemptions suggested in the draft legislation — parents caring for young children or elderly parents, individuals dealing with health issues, those between jobs — reflect the range of reasons why Medicaid recipients may fall below the proposed hourly requirement. And each time an exception arises, individuals will have to refile, increasing the likelihood they will simply let their coverage lapse. It also will force working individuals who would otherwise be eligible — such as Americans working gig jobs for DoorDash or Uber, for example — to account for hours worked transiting between jobs that don't generate receipts. 'They just are not finding very much at all,' said John Schmitt, a senior research fellow at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute, when asked whether ineligible individuals are routinely receiving Medicaid. 'The real problems are not with individuals taking advantage of Medicaid,' Schmitt added. 'It is with healthcare providers taking advantage of Medicaid, in the sense of the way they bill and provide services to people. And that is not going to be changed in any way, whatsoever, by imposing a work requirement.' The Congressional Budget Office said it is these Medicaid recipients who will either fall behind or grow fed up with the paperwork, resulting in 7.6 million losing coverage under the plan and saving the federal government roughly $800 billion. The effects of Medicaid cuts will be felt nationwide, but most pointedly in states that expanded Medicaid coverage under the Affordable Care Act. On that score, Democratic states such as California lead the way. A state assessment published Sunday found the GOP bill would 'cause serious harm to California's health care system,' possibly resulting in up to 3.4 million residents losing coverage. No state has more workers on Medicaid than California, where 18% of its workforce receives benefits from the program, according to a study from the Center for Economic and Policy Research. 'Millions will lose coverage, hospitals will close, and safety nets could collapse under the weight,' Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement. 'We must sound the alarm because the stakes couldn't be higher.' But the political stakes are high for Republicans as well. Stephen K. Bannon, a former campaign aide and White House strategist to Trump, warned in recent days that the party has 'gotta be careful' with Medicaid, given its widespread use among low-income GOP voters. 'A lot of MAGAs are on Medicaid, I'm telling you,' Bannon said on his podcast. 'If you don't think so, you are dead wrong.' Trump, for his part, seems of two minds on the matter. Cuts to Medicaid, as well as to food stamp programs and green energy tax benefits, will be required to get the bill passed with support from the Freedom Caucus, which says the renewal of tax cuts initially passed in the first Trump administration must be offset with savings elsewhere. 'Here's what I want on Medicaid: We're not touching anything,' Trump said Tuesday, taking questions from reporters on Capitol Hill. 'All I want is one thing. Three words. We don't want any waste, fraud or abuse. Very simple — waste, fraud, abuse.' But in a private meeting with GOP lawmakers, his guidance was sharper. 'Don't f— around with Medicaid,' the president reportedly said. The must-read: White House pushes for quick approval of 'big, beautiful bill,' but key hurdles remain The deep dive: Villaraigosa blasts Harris and Becerra for not speaking out about Biden's decline The L.A. Times Special: Congressional leaders call for streamlined visa process ahead of World Cup, L.A. Olympics More to come,Michael Wilner—Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.
