vox--2020-01-14--This bill could make it harder for teens to get birth control

Today , teenagers in Maryland and more than twenty other states have the legal right to get birth control on their own .
But Maryland lawmakers want to make certain kinds of birth control — intrauterine devices ( IUDs ) and implants — subject to parental approval .
And reproductive health advocates say it ’ s part of a bigger push across the country that could jeopardize teens ’ access to care .
State Del .
Neil Parrott , a Republican , proposed the bill after a mother said her daughter had a contraceptive implant improperly inserted at a school-based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ student pain and had to be removed , according to Baltimore ’ s WMAR-2 News .
Parrott says the bill is necessary to keep parents informed about their children ’ s health .
“ The issue really is parents having no knowledge at all , ” he told the Frederick News-Post .
But others say that Nexplanon ( a brand name for the implant ) and the IUD are generally very safe , and that the bill could keep teens from getting reproductive health care they need .
A parental permission requirement could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unsafe homes from getting birth control , Rebecca Thimmesch , manager of Advocates for Youth ’ s Free the Pill Youth Council , told Vox .
And regardless of home environment , having to notify a parent places an additional obstacle in front of teens seeking birth control , making it more likely they will experience an unintended pregnancy .
While laws specifically targeting methods of birth control are rare , the law is part of a larger pattern of states requiring parental notification and consent for reproductive health services from abortion to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Thimmesch said .
“ It is really tricky , across the country , for young people to be getting the care that they need safely and confidentially and affordably , ” she said .
“ Any efforts to make that harder are definitely moving in the wrong direction.
” Maryland lawmakers want to require parental consent for teens to get contraceptive implants or IUDs The story behind the Maryland bill began this fall , when a 16-year-old Baltimore student got a Nexplanon implant at a school-based health center , according to WMAR-2 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ based at schools , several of which provide birth control .
The Nexplanon is a small rod inserted into a patient ’ s arm , which can prevent pregnancy for up to five years .
It is more than 99 percent effective , according to Planned Parenthood , and serious side effects are rare .
But the Baltimore teen , who has not been named publicly , began experiencing headaches and arm pain .
Her mother , Nicole Lambert , took her to a pediatrician , who said the implant had been inserted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The doctor recommended that the implant be taken out to avoid complications , including a risk of blood clots , WMAR-2 reported .
The Baltimore City Health Department , which oversees the school-based health centers , did not respond to questions from WMAR-2 , citing a pending legal case .
Wendy Smith , president of the union representing nurses within the department , said in a statement to the network that while the union would not comment directly , “ we do stand behind our members , and I hope the student @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who hadn ’ t been notified that her daughter got the implant , was “ furious , ” she told WMAR-2 .
“ I instantly started crying because just to hear that your child , anything could happen to your child and you didn ’ t even know what ’ s going on , it ’ s a scary feeling , ” she said .
Maryland is one of 23 states that allow all minors to consent to contraceptive services , without requiring them to get parental permission , according to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also allows all minors to consent ) .
In some other states , laws allow minors to get birth control without parental permission under some circumstances , such as if a doctor determines the minor would face health hazards if not permitted to get contraception .
But after Del .
Parrott heard the Lambert family ’ s story , he decided to spearhead a change to his state ’ s law .
In January , he and several co-sponsors introduced House Bill 53 , which would require parental permission before minors in Maryland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Other forms of birth control , like the pill or patch , are not affected by the law .
Del .
Lauren Arikan , a Republican and one of the bill ’ s co-sponsors , told the News-Post that the bill was written to focus on forms of birth control “ that are really invasive.
” “ Not that oral birth control doesn ’ t cause real issues , ” she said , but “ this is specifically for things that have serious health concerns.
” The implant and the IUD are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more effective for teens than other forms of birth control But others say that while they can have side effects , both the IUD and the implant are generally very safe .
Many methods of hormonal birth control carry a risk of blood clots , Dr. Anne-Marie E. Amies Oelschlager , chief of pediatric and adolescent gynecology at Seattle Children ’ s Hospital , told Vox .
But the risks are actually lower with the implant and the IUD than with other hormonal methods , since the implant and IUD do not contain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of cases , Amies Oelschlager said , the implant is misplaced , which can cause arm pain and potentially make the implant less effective .
In those cases , doctors recommend removing the device and implanting a new one or using a different method .
But in general , the implant and the IUD are extremely effective in preventing pregnancy among teenagers — 20 times more effective than other methods like the pill , Amies Oelschlager said .
Teenagers are more likely than adults to have a contraceptive failure with methods like the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ able to take their medication as directed .
It ’ s not just about forgetting to take the pill every day .
“ It is harder for them to get to a pharmacy to fill a prescription , ” and “ they may not have the income to be able to do it , ” Amies Oelschlager said .
A bill making the most effective types of birth control for teenagers harder to get could do young people more harm than good , advocates say .
Teenagers who are being abused or neglected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ask about birth control , Advocates for Youth ’ s Thimmesch said .
LGBTQ young people , who are at disproportionate risk of being thrown out of a home due to homophobia or transphobia , may have an especially difficult time seeking permission .
Safety isn ’ t the only concern .
Requiring a teenager to get a parent ’ s permission also increases the time the young person has to wait before getting on birth control , Thimmesch said .
Advocates for Youth recommends that teenagers be able to get contraception on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for contraceptive counseling , in part because of the difficulties young people face in getting to a doctor or pharmacy in the first place .
A delay could make unintended pregnancy more likely .
“ Anytime young people are having to take additional steps , it reduces the likelihood that they ’ re going to be able to get the care that they need , ” Thimmesch said .
The Maryland law is part of a bigger trend around the country The Maryland law is part of a years-long push by lawmakers to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ types of reproductive health care , Thimmesch explained .
For example , 21 states require parental consent for a minor to obtain an abortion , according to the Guttmacher Institute .
Many states require minors to get parental consent for contraception unless they meet certain criteria , like being married or being a high-school graduate .
And in North Dakota , pregnant minors must get parental consent for most prenatal care in the second and third trimesters .
Such laws are part of “ a general trend of disrespect for young people ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reproductive health advocates generally support teenagers talking to parents about reproductive health care if it ’ s safe to do so .
“ Ideally , we ’ d live in a world where all young people are comfortable coming to their parents for any type of concern , ” Thimmesch said .
But rather than mandating consent by law , parents should “ be doing the work of becoming an approachable parent for your child , ” she said .
In her practice , many teenagers come to a doctor ’ s visit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But at some point , she will request time to speak with the young patient alone , and “ this is often when adolescents will be able to speak more truthfully about sexual activity.
” “ We know that adolescents don ’ t often talk to their family members about everything that they ’ re doing , ” she said , and “ we believe that adolescents should be able to access things that are going to improve their long-term health without parental consent .
”

Today, teenagers in Maryland and more than twenty other states have the legal right to get birth control on their own.
But Maryland lawmakers want to make certain kinds of birth control — intrauterine devices (IUDs) and implants — subject to parental approval. And reproductive health advocates say it’s part of a bigger push across the country that could jeopardize teens’ access to care.
State Del. Neil Parrott, a Republican, proposed the bill after a mother said her daughter had a contraceptive implant improperly inserted at a school-based health center. The implant caused the student pain and had to be removed, according to Baltimore’s WMAR-2 News.
Parrott says the bill is necessary to keep parents informed about their children’s health. “The issue really is parents having no knowledge at all,” he told the Frederick News-Post.
But others say that Nexplanon (a brand name for the implant) and the IUD are generally very safe, and that the bill could keep teens from getting reproductive health care they need. A parental permission requirement could block young people in abusive or otherwise unsafe homes from getting birth control, Rebecca Thimmesch, manager of Advocates for Youth’s Free the Pill Youth Council, told Vox. And regardless of home environment, having to notify a parent places an additional obstacle in front of teens seeking birth control, making it more likely they will experience an unintended pregnancy.
While laws specifically targeting methods of birth control are rare, the law is part of a larger pattern of states requiring parental notification and consent for reproductive health services from abortion to childbirth care when teens do have children, Thimmesch said.
“It is really tricky, across the country, for young people to be getting the care that they need safely and confidentially and affordably,” she said. “Any efforts to make that harder are definitely moving in the wrong direction.”
Maryland lawmakers want to require parental consent for teens to get contraceptive implants or IUDs
The story behind the Maryland bill began this fall, when a 16-year-old Baltimore student got a Nexplanon implant at a school-based health center, according to WMAR-2. The city has 17 health centers based at schools, several of which provide birth control.
The Nexplanon is a small rod inserted into a patient’s arm, which can prevent pregnancy for up to five years. It is more than 99 percent effective, according to Planned Parenthood, and serious side effects are rare.
But the Baltimore teen, who has not been named publicly, began experiencing headaches and arm pain. Her mother, Nicole Lambert, took her to a pediatrician, who said the implant had been inserted in the wrong spot on her arm. The doctor recommended that the implant be taken out to avoid complications, including a risk of blood clots, WMAR-2 reported.
The Baltimore City Health Department, which oversees the school-based health centers, did not respond to questions from WMAR-2, citing a pending legal case. Wendy Smith, president of the union representing nurses within the department, said in a statement to the network that while the union would not comment directly, “we do stand behind our members, and I hope the student receives the care she needs.”
Lambert, who hadn’t been notified that her daughter got the implant, was “furious,” she told WMAR-2. “I instantly started crying because just to hear that your child, anything could happen to your child and you didn’t even know what’s going on, it’s a scary feeling,” she said.
Maryland is one of 23 states that allow all minors to consent to contraceptive services, without requiring them to get parental permission, according to the Guttmacher Institute (the District of Columbia also allows all minors to consent). In some other states, laws allow minors to get birth control without parental permission under some circumstances, such as if a doctor determines the minor would face health hazards if not permitted to get contraception.
But after Del. Parrott heard the Lambert family’s story, he decided to spearhead a change to his state’s law. In January, he and several co-sponsors introduced House Bill 53, which would require parental permission before minors in Maryland can get an IUD or contraceptive implant. Other forms of birth control, like the pill or patch, are not affected by the law.
Del. Lauren Arikan, a Republican and one of the bill’s co-sponsors, told the News-Post that the bill was written to focus on forms of birth control “that are really invasive.”
“Not that oral birth control doesn’t cause real issues,” she said, but “this is specifically for things that have serious health concerns.”
The implant and the IUD are very safe — and they’re more effective for teens than other forms of birth control
But others say that while they can have side effects, both the IUD and the implant are generally very safe. Many methods of hormonal birth control carry a risk of blood clots, Dr. Anne-Marie E. Amies Oelschlager, chief of pediatric and adolescent gynecology at Seattle Children’s Hospital, told Vox. But the risks are actually lower with the implant and the IUD than with other hormonal methods, since the implant and IUD do not contain estrogen.
In fewer than 1 percent of cases, Amies Oelschlager said, the implant is misplaced, which can cause arm pain and potentially make the implant less effective. In those cases, doctors recommend removing the device and implanting a new one or using a different method.
But in general, the implant and the IUD are extremely effective in preventing pregnancy among teenagers — 20 times more effective than other methods like the pill, Amies Oelschlager said. Teenagers are more likely than adults to have a contraceptive failure with methods like the pill, where they aren’t able to take their medication as directed.
It’s not just about forgetting to take the pill every day. “It is harder for them to get to a pharmacy to fill a prescription,” and “they may not have the income to be able to do it,” Amies Oelschlager said.
A bill making the most effective types of birth control for teenagers harder to get could do young people more harm than good, advocates say.
Teenagers who are being abused or neglected may not have a safe parent to ask about birth control, Advocates for Youth’s Thimmesch said. LGBTQ young people, who are at disproportionate risk of being thrown out of a home due to homophobia or transphobia, may have an especially difficult time seeking permission.
Safety isn’t the only concern. Requiring a teenager to get a parent’s permission also increases the time the young person has to wait before getting on birth control, Thimmesch said.
Advocates for Youth recommends that teenagers be able to get contraception on the same day they see a doctor for contraceptive counseling, in part because of the difficulties young people face in getting to a doctor or pharmacy in the first place. A delay could make unintended pregnancy more likely.
“Anytime young people are having to take additional steps, it reduces the likelihood that they’re going to be able to get the care that they need,” Thimmesch said.
The Maryland law is part of a bigger trend around the country
The Maryland law is part of a years-long push by lawmakers to require parental notification and consent for various types of reproductive health care, Thimmesch explained. For example, 21 states require parental consent for a minor to obtain an abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Many states require minors to get parental consent for contraception unless they meet certain criteria, like being married or being a high-school graduate. And in North Dakota, pregnant minors must get parental consent for most prenatal care in the second and third trimesters.
Such laws are part of “a general trend of disrespect for young people’s autonomy,” Thimmesch said.
Reproductive health advocates generally support teenagers talking to parents about reproductive health care if it’s safe to do so. “Ideally, we’d live in a world where all young people are comfortable coming to their parents for any type of concern,” Thimmesch said. But rather than mandating consent by law, parents should “be doing the work of becoming an approachable parent for your child,” she said.
In her practice, many teenagers come to a doctor’s visit with a parent, Amies Oelschlager said. But at some point, she will request time to speak with the young patient alone, and “this is often when adolescents will be able to speak more truthfully about sexual activity.”
“We know that adolescents don’t often talk to their family members about everything that they’re doing,” she said, and “we believe that adolescents should be able to access things that are going to improve their long-term health without parental consent.”


vox--2020-01-14--Stephen King’s confusing tweets about diversity missed a larger point about the Oscars

Horror maestro Stephen King has chimed in on the subject of diversifying the arts , ostensibly in response to backlash against the all-too-familiar whiteness of the 2020 Oscar nominations slate .
In a tweet Tuesday morning , King suggested that the only thing that matters when judging art is the quality of the art , and that diversity should not be a factor .
The tweet coincided with significant social media discussion about the omission of women and people of color from major Oscars categories like acting and directing — and many people interpreted King ’ s tweet as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so many others , King may have had the Oscars on his mind because of Monday ’ s nominations , which seemed to offer a strikingly clear example of diverse creative teams producing art of very high quality , yet being maddeningly shut out of the Oscar race in favor of lauding established Hollywood insiders .
The nominations include only one actor of color in all four acting categories , Cynthia Erivo ( for Harriet ) .
Meanwhile , Awkwafina , fresh off winning a Golden Globe for her acclaimed performance in The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Actress category for the Oscars .
And while Bong Joon-ho ’ s Parasite is nominated for Best Picture , Best International Feature Film , and Best Director — earning historic recognition for South Korea — the film ’ s stellar ensemble cast was not nominated in the acting categories .
Additionally , Greta Gerwig , a 2018 Best Director nominee , and only the fifth woman ever to be nominated in the category , was denied a second nomination for directing Little Women , despite the film being nominated for Best Picture and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ having won a staggering amount of critical acclaim compared to some of its more controversial Best Picture fellows .
Many people who responded to King ’ s surprising statement were quick to point out that all too frequently , the systems that produce art are designed to shut out minority artists — meaning that many of them never even get the chance to be judged by the quality of their work .
Eventually — around two hours after his tweet — King qualified his statement with two follow-up thoughts that seemed to acknowledge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people who replied to disagree with him .
It ’ s not clear what specific scenario , if any , King might have been thinking about beyond the Oscars .
( Vox has reached out to King ’ s publisher for comment . )
But it ’ s worth noting that the most recent round of predominantly white Oscar nominees — a persistent problem for the Academy — has come after several years in which the Academy rapidly and dramatically increased its number of new memberships to meaningfully diversify its voting body .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot more work to be done to shift the institutional apparatus that keeps many diverse films from finding broader awards recognition .
Without more clarification , however , what seemed to some fans to be King ’ s abrupt about-face left them confused : But unlike many of King ’ s fictional must-reads , his Twitter musings might be best left un-scrutinized .
King might be in many ways a typical privileged white dude ( never forget that his wife Tabitha King put his career ahead of her own and pushed him to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s often tried to pay his success forward and look out for the underdog .
“ Young writers and filmmakers need a hand up , because it ’ s a hard world out there , ” he told EW in 2008 .
Of course , it ’ s frequently an even harder world out there for writers and filmmakers from marginalized groups , who often don ’ t have the same advantages and opportunities afforded to them .
Keep heading in that direction , Stephen , and you ’ ll understand why so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tweet .

Horror maestro Stephen King has chimed in on the subject of diversifying the arts, in response to backlash against the all-too-familiar whiteness of the 2020 Oscar nominations slate.
In a tweet Tuesday morning, King suggested that the only thing that matters when judging art is the quality of the art, and that diversity should not be a factor. The tweets coincided with significant social media discussion about the omission of women and people of color from major Oscars categories like acting and directing — and many people interpreted King’s tweet as a tacit dismissal of those concerns.
King noted that as a member of the writing branch of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, he is only permitted to vote in three categories: Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Original Screenplay. “For me, the diversity issue — as it applies to individual actors and directors, anyway — did not come up,” King said. “That said I would never consider diversity in matters of art. Only quality.”
As a writer, I am allowed to nominate in just 3 categories: Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Original Screenplay. For me, the diversity issue--as it applies to individual actors and directors, anyway--did not come up. That said... — Stephen King (@StephenKing) January 14, 2020
...I would never consider diversity in matters of art. Only quality. It seems to me that to do otherwise would be wrong. — Stephen King (@StephenKing) January 14, 2020
Like so many others, King presumably had the Oscars on his mind because Monday’s nominations seemed to offer a strikingly clear example of diverse creative teams producing art of very high quality, yet being maddeningly shut out of the Oscar race in favor of lauding established Hollywood insiders.
The nominations include only one actor of color in all four acting categories, Cynthia Erivo (for Harriet). Meanwhile, Awkwafina, fresh off winning a Golden Globe for her acclaimed performance in The Farewell, was not nominated in Lead Actress category for the Oscars. And while Bong Joon-ho’s Parasite is nominated for Best Picture, Best International Feature Film, and Best Director — earning historic recognition for South Korea — the film’s stellar ensemble cast was not nominated in the acting categories.
Additionally, Greta Gerwig, a 2018 Best Director nominee, and only the fifth woman ever to be nominated in the category, was denied a second nomination for directing Little Women, despite the film being nominated for Best Picture and several other awards, and despite its having won a staggering amount of critical acclaim compared to some of its more controversial Best Picture fellows.
The categories in which King was eligible to vote showed some diversity, but were largely dominated by white male directors who wrote or co-wrote their own screenplays. Gerwig received a nomination for Adapted Screenplay. Bong (along with his Parasite co-writer Han Jin-won) and JoJo Rabbit director Taika Waiti were nominated for their films’ screenplays, and World War I film 1917 earned a nod for its co-writers, director Sam Mendes and Krysty Wilson-Cairns.
Many people who responded to King’s surprising statement were quick to point out that all too frequently, the systems that produce art are designed to shut out minority artists — meaning that many of them never even get the chance to be judged by the quality of their work.
With all due respect, I'm afraid that a meritocracy could work only if the game weren't rigged. — Laura Lippman (@LauraMLippman) January 14, 2020
Damn, Stephen. Damn. I thought you were better than this. It should be obvious that diversity and quality *aren't separate qualities,* or in opposition to each other -- except in the minds of bigots.
Damn. — N. K. Jemisin (@nkjemisin) January 14, 2020
Eventually — around two hours after his tweet — King qualified his statement with two follow-up thoughts that seemed to acknowledge the viewpoints of the many, many people who replied to disagree with him.
The most important thing we can do as artists and creative people is make sure everyone has the same fair shot, regardless of sex, color, or orientation. Right now such people are badly under-represented, and not only in the arts. — Stephen King (@StephenKing) January 14, 2020
You can't win awards if you're shut out of the game. — Stephen King (@StephenKing) January 14, 2020
It’s worth noting that the most recent round of predominantly white Oscar nominees — a persistent problem for the Academy — has come after several years in which the Academy rapidly and dramatically increased its number of new memberships to meaningfully diversify its voting body. Apparently, there’s still a lot more work to be done to shift the institutional apparatus that keeps many diverse films from finding broader awards recognition.
Without more clarification, however, what seemed to some fans to be King’s abrupt about-face left them confused:
This is a very strange tweet to make after the previous. I'm curious how you envision we "ensure everyone has a fair shot" without ever considering diversity. — Caraid (@CaraidArt) January 14, 2020
But unlike many of King’s fictional must-reads, his Twitter musings might be best left un-scrutinized. King might be in many ways a typical privileged white dude (never forget that his wife Tabitha King put his career ahead of her own and pushed him to keep writing), but he’s often tried to pay his success forward and look out for the underdog.
“Young writers and filmmakers need a hand up, because it’s a hard world out there,” he told EW in 2008. Of course, it’s frequently an even harder world out there for writers and filmmakers from marginalized groups, who often don’t have the same advantages and opportunities afforded to them.
Keep heading in that direction, Stephen, and you’ll understand why so many people were taken aback by your tweet.
Correction: An earlier version of this story said it was not clear whether King was commenting on the Oscar nominations. It has been corrected to clarify that he was, via an additional tweet in which he directly referenced the nominations.


vox--2020-01-14--A top Away executive quit the same day the founder and CEO said she was returning

When Steph Korey , the embattled co-founder of the luggage startup Away , revealed in a New York Times story Monday morning that she had reversed her decision to step down as CEO , it shocked a startup world that was just beginning to move on from the drama that had enveloped the company a month earlier .
But inside of Away , more big changes were happening : Erin Grau , the company ’ s vice president of people and culture , told her bosses on Monday that she planned to quit , Recode has learned .
She ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ month or two .
In addition to human resources , Grau also oversaw internal communications and recruiting for the company .
The timing of the resignation raises questions about whether Grau disagreed with Korey ’ s decision to reclaim the CEO title and/or if her planned departure is connected to the revelation that Away was considering a lawsuit over the article that led to Korey ’ s initial resignation , published by Recode sister publication The Verge .
Before joining Away in 2018 , Grau was a media executive , having worked for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , where she recently was vice president of transformation .
An Away spokesperson declined to comment on whether the timing of Grau ’ s resignation was connected to Korey ’ s CEO announcement or the threat of legal action against Vox Media , which owns both The Verge and Recode .
Grau did not immediately respond to a message from Recode seeking comment .
“ In the past two years I ’ ve been at Away , the company grew from under 100 people to 500+ , the People & Culture team from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and we ’ ve implemented countless systems and processes to improve our culture and working lives , ” Grau said in a statement provided by an Away spokesperson .
“ I ’ m proud of the impact we ’ ve had , the strides we ’ ve made , and I have the utmost trust in our leadership .
I know my work will have a lasting impact on Away.
” The original investigation from The Verge depicted Korey as a chief executive who openly criticized employees publicly in Slack messages and micro-managed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which all contributed to what employees interviewed by The Verge said was a toxic work environment .
“ I know this group is hungry for career development opportunities , and in an effort to support you in developing your skills , I am going to help you learn the career skill of accountability , ” Korey wrote in one series of middle-of-the-night Slack messages to her customer service staff ( emphasis hers ) .
“ To hold you accountable ... no more [ paid time off ] or [ work from home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 6 of you ...
I hope everyone in this group appreciates the thoughtfulness I ’ ve put into creating this career development opportunity and that you ’ re all excited to operate consistently with our core values.
” A day after The Verge story ran , Korey said in a statement posted on Twitter that she was “ appalled and embarrassed ” by the Slack messages published in the piece .
“ I ’ m sincerely wrong for what I said and how I said it .
It was wrong plain and simple.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Away announced that Korey would step down as CEO in the new year and would move into an executive chairman role .
In her place , the company announced the hire of Lululemon chief operating officer Stuart Haselden as new CEO .
Recode later reported that Away ’ s original plan was for Haselden to join as Korey ’ s No .
2 executive and transition into the CEO role later in 2020 .
But some Away investors were in favor of ripping off the Band-Aid and making the change immediately in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ previously reported .
Korey has subsequently said that the decision to step aside was hers .
But in the interview with the Times published this week , Korey said she always intended to remain in an active leadership rule , even under the new title of executive chairman , but that the chairman title led to confusion both internally and externally .
So Korey decided she shouldn ’ t relinquish the CEO title after all and would now be co-CEO alongside Haselden , who will carry the same title .
So while Away @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needs a new human resources chief .

When Steph Korey, the embattled co-founder of the luggage startup Away, revealed in a New York Times story Monday morning that she had reversed her decision to step down as CEO, it shocked a startup world that was just beginning to move on from the drama that had enveloped the company a month earlier.
But inside of Away, more big changes were happening: Erin Grau, the company’s vice president of people and culture, told her bosses on Monday that she planned to quit, Recode has learned. She’ll leave the company in the next month or two. In addition to human resources, Grau also oversaw internal communications and recruiting for the company.
The timing of the resignation raises questions about whether Grau disagreed with Korey’s decision to reclaim the CEO title and/or if her planned departure is connected to the revelation that Away was considering a lawsuit over the article that led to Korey’s initial resignation, published by Recode sister publication The Verge. Before joining Away in 2018, Grau was a media executive, having worked for seven years at the New York Times, where she recently was vice president of transformation.
An Away spokesperson declined to comment on whether the timing of Grau’s resignation was connected to Korey’s CEO announcement or the threat of legal action against Vox Media, which owns both The Verge and Recode. Grau did not immediately respond to a message from Recode seeking comment.
“In the past two years I’ve been at Away, the company grew from under 100 people to 500+, the People & Culture team from a few people to several dozen, and we’ve implemented countless systems and processes to improve our culture and working lives,” Grau said in a statement provided by an Away spokesperson. “I’m proud of the impact we’ve had, the strides we’ve made, and I have the utmost trust in our leadership. I know my work will have a lasting impact on Away.”
The original investigation from The Verge depicted Korey as a chief executive who openly criticized employees publicly in Slack messages and micro-managed the company’s customer service staff, which all contributed to what employees interviewed by The Verge said was a toxic work environment.
“I know this group is hungry for career development opportunities, and in an effort to support you in developing your skills, I am going to help you learn the career skill of accountability,” Korey wrote in one series of middle-of-the-night Slack messages to her customer service staff (emphasis hers). “To hold you accountable...no more [paid time off] or [work from home] requests will be considered from the 6 of you...I hope everyone in this group appreciates the thoughtfulness I’ve put into creating this career development opportunity and that you’re all excited to operate consistently with our core values.”
A day after The Verge story ran, Korey said in a statement posted on Twitter that she was “appalled and embarrassed” by the Slack messages published in the piece. “I’m sincerely wrong for what I said and how I said it. It was wrong plain and simple.”
Just a few days later, Away announced that Korey would step down as CEO in the new year and would move into an executive chairman role. In her place, the company announced the hire of Lululemon chief operating officer Stuart Haselden as new CEO.
Recode later reported that Away’s original plan was for Haselden to join as Korey’s No. 2 executive and transition into the CEO role later in 2020. But some Away investors were in favor of ripping off the Band-Aid and making the change immediately in the aftermath of the Verge investigation, Recode previously reported. Korey has subsequently said that the decision to step aside was hers.
But in the interview with the Times published this week, Korey said she always intended to remain in an active leadership rule, even under the new title of executive chairman, but that the chairman title led to confusion both internally and externally. So Korey decided she shouldn’t relinquish the CEO title after all and would now be co-CEO alongside Haselden, who will carry the same title.
So while Away now has two chief executives, it needs a new human resources chief.


vox--2020-01-14--Iran, China, and war: Foreign policy topics to watch for in the January debate

Finally — finally — there ’ s a good chance that foreign policy will feature heavily in a Democratic presidential debate .
If it happens , the six 2020 Democratic candidates in tonight ’ s debate will have their best chance yet at demonstrating they could serve ably as the country ’ s next commander-in-chief .
President Donald Trump ’ s decision to kill Iranian military leader Qassem Soleimani on January 2 — which some people worried could lead to war with Iran — and his impending phase-one trade deal with China will likely place world affairs at center stage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are looking forward to it .
Multiple campaigns told me they see foreign policy as a huge weakness for Trump , and they relish the chance to hit him on it .
“ This is what happens when a president disregards allies the US has had for decades , ” Benjamin Gardes , the senior spokesperson for Tom Steyer ’ s campaign , told me .
“ Trump ’ s policies have placed regions around the world in a cauldron of conflict.
” Yet the real challenge for the candidates onstage tonight won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic voters that they are a better choice to lead the country than Donald Trump — most registered Democrats probably already agree with that point — it ’ ll be to differentiate themselves from one another .
And in this regard , they may have a harder time .
“ I expect a fair amount of unity and clarity laying out how the current administration ’ s policies and recent actions make the US less safe , prosperous , and respected , ” says Heather Hurlburt , a US foreign policy expert at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But there could still be fireworks .
Vice President Joe Biden , the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination , is facing criticism from candidates on his left like Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-VT ) about his previous support for the Iraq War .
A clear split has also formed among contenders over the benefits of Trump ’ s competition with China , with some like former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg saying it ’ s worth pushing back hard on Beijing .
And Democrats may even go after each other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Soleimani decision .
So , with just a few hours to go until the Iowa debate , here ’ s a quick guide on what to expect when it comes to foreign policy .
2020 Democrats will bash Trump ’ s Iran policy and may talk about “ assassination ” All six candidates on the stage tonight have criticized Trump ’ s decision to kill Soleimani because they worried about the chance of a broader escalation with Tehran , though most acknowledged that Soleimani was a bad guy .
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy adviser to Hillary Clinton ’ s 2016 presidential campaign , told me he expects the world affairs portion of the debate will “ focus on Iran first and foremost , and the administration ’ s incoherent story and response.
” “ A rational leader and administration likely wouldn ’ t have engaged the regime in the haphazard way Trump has , ” Garrison said .
Ben Rhodes , who was President Obama ’ s deputy national security adviser and a key figure in promoting the Iran deal , wants Democrats to use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s foreign policy narrative .
“ It ’ s important that the candidates connect the recent dangers with Iran to Trump ’ s decision to withdraw from the nuclear deal , ” Rhodes told me , “ and broaden the conversation beyond one exchange with Iran to the broader failures : Iran ’ s resuming its nuclear program , the counter-ISIS mission being suspended , and the enduring risk to our personnel in Iraq and the region.
” “ I ’ ll also be looking to see if Democrats are at all defensive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ record — they shouldn ’ t be , ” he added .
But any attempt to “ go after ” Trump could be sidelined by a debate over how to frame the Soleimani killing itself .
Sanders has already taken some heat from moderate Democrats and conservatives for calling the Soleimani killing an “ assassination ” while failing to say anything negative about the Iranian general in his first campaign statement on January 2 .
That ’ s a charged term , as Max Fisher and Amanda Taub explained in the New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sentiment four days later when he compared the killing with Russian President Vladimir Putin murdering dissidents .
Those statements may lead candidates with more traditional foreign policy views like Biden and Sen. Amy Klobuchar ( D-MN ) — both of whom lambasted Soleimani in their statements — to attack Sanders for his stated anti-war stance and accuse him of being too weak on national security .
Buttigieg and Warren have also used “ assassination , ” but they are not as likely to get the kind of blowback Sanders might .
After all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place among the candidates , and analysts increasingly think he has a strong chance of winning in Iowa next month .
That most likely puts the target on his back more than on the other two , which means he may have to answer for his “ assassination ” comments .
2020 Democrats may have to reckon with Trump ’ s China strategy The day after the debate , Trump and a top Chinese official will sign “ phase one ” of the president ’ s long-sought trade deal with Beijing .
According @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal includes greater access for US companies to Chinese banks and more Chinese purchases of American products .
Some tariffs , which Trump placed on Beijing ’ s US-bound exports to force them to negotiate an agreement , will also be lifted .
That development could put 2020 Democrats at the debate in a tight spot .
Most candidates have trashed Trump ’ s heavy-handed approach toward China , though some believe it ’ s important for the US to confront Beijing .
“ Chinese techno-authoritarianism , ” Buttigieg said in a foreign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ s ] a major challenge to us.
” Yet the candidates are unanimous in wanting trade deals that help American workers .
A Trump deal that secures more access for US firms to sell in China could help those same workers — thus putting a dent in Democrats ’ criticism of Trump ’ s approach .
It could lead to especially awkward answers from Sanders and Warren , who have led the left-wing campaign charge in advocating for less free trade and more protections for American workers .
They ’ ll have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal for their base while at the same time smashing Trump for the way he went about making the deal , which involved consistently increasing tariffs until China had no choice but to put pen to paper on something .
They may get an out , though , as Democratic Party leadership has already come out against the deal .
“ The terms of the agreement will result in very little progress in reforming China ’ s rapacious trade behaviors and seems like it could send a signal to Chinese negotiators that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chuck Schumer ( D-NY ) , the party ’ s leader in the upper chamber , wrote to Trump on Monday .
It ’ s possible , some experts say , that a China question could prompt a broader discussion on how the world ’ s two most important countries should interact in the future .
“ Power competition should be discussed generally , ” Garrison , who is now at the Human Rights First advocacy group , predicts .
But other than that , experts say it ’ s more than likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few moments but then the debate will quickly move on .
2020 Democrats will tussle on their war records One of the most important developments in the race right now is Sanders attacking Biden on his war record .
There ’ s good reason to do that : Biden voted for the Iraq War and continued to support it even after it started to look like a failure .
Sanders has used Trump ’ s recent actions in Iran to label himself the anti-war candidate while branding Biden as having poor judgment on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ earlier this month to block funding for any military action in Iran and put out a video saying he ’ s “ not sorry ” for his long history of opposing US wars .
Sanders and fellow progressive Sen. Elizabeth Warren ( who wasn ’ t in office for the vote on Iraq ) both lead an anti-war strategy call with liberal MoveOn activists and signed on to a bipartisan Senate resolution saying Congress has not yet approved any war with Iran .
Biden , meanwhile , played up his faith in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama White House , which negotiated the Iran nuclear deal in 2015 .
As Trump seemingly blamed Obama in his Iran “ victory ” speech last week , Biden went on the offensive , defending his former boss on Twitter .
“ He ’ s been President for three years , ” he said of Trump .
“ It ’ s time he stops blaming President Obama for his failures.
” This line dovetails with Biden ’ s message that he will be ready to be commander in chief on his first day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , then , that this brewing feud will continue onstage .
But punching Biden on foreign policy may not be as effective as Sanders hopes .
A CNN poll from last November showed the former vice president is far and away the most trusted on foreign policy among the 2020 Democratic candidates , with Biden beating Sanders 48 percent to 14 percent .
Which means attacking Biden on his foreign policy acumen could backfire on the Vermont senator .
Indeed , Sanders likes to brag that he never voted for a defense authorization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but he did so four times with George W. Bush as president .
He therefore can ’ t say that he wasn ’ t fully opposed to the Iraq War effort , though he couched one of his votes as helping troops who would be in harm ’ s way regardless of what he did .
“ No member in this body disagrees that so long as our troops remain in Iraq , they should have the resources they need in order to protect their lives , ” the senator said in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bill .
“ We have not done well in this area up to this point , and we must do better.
” But Sanders isn ’ t the only one looking to tussle with Obama ’ s former No .
2 .
Tom Steyer , the Maryland billionaire , has repeatedly gone on TV to say that years in politics doesn ’ t necessarily make a better commander in chief .
“ What counts is judgment , not experience , ” he told MSNBC on Tuesday , hours before the debate .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has brought us over the last 20 years , it ’ s two failed wars , the waste of American lives , and Americans dollars and prestige doing something that didn ’ t make sense.
” Steyer hasn ’ t said Biden ’ s name directly , but it ’ s clear that ’ s who he ’ s mostly referring to .
That indicates the former vice president may face attacks on his foreign policy record from all sides during the debate .
Put together , it ’ s likely that tonight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clearer picture of how these candidates would handle the world from the Oval Office .

Finally — finally — there’s a good chance that foreign policy will feature heavily in a Democratic presidential debate. If it happens, the six 2020 Democratic candidates in tonight’s debate will have their best chance yet at demonstrating they could serve ably as the country’s next commander-in-chief.
President Donald Trump’s decision to kill Iranian military leader Qassem Soleimani on January 2 — which some people worried could lead to war with Iran — and his impending phase-one trade deal with China will likely place world affairs at center stage in Iowa tonight.
And the candidates are looking forward to it. Multiple campaigns told me they see foreign policy as a huge weakness for Trump, and they relish the chance to hit him on it.
“This is what happens when a president disregards allies the US has had for decades,” Benjamin Gardes, the senior spokesperson for Tom Steyer’s campaign, told me. “Trump’s policies have placed regions around the world in a cauldron of conflict.”
Yet the real challenge for the candidates onstage tonight won’t be making the case to Democratic voters that they are a better choice to lead the country than Donald Trump — most registered Democrats probably already agree with that point — it’ll be to differentiate themselves from one another.
And in this regard, they may have a harder time. “I expect a fair amount of unity and clarity laying out how the current administration’s policies and recent actions make the US less safe, prosperous, and respected,” says Heather , a US foreign policy expert at the New America Foundation in Washington.
But there could still be fireworks.
Vice President Joe Biden, the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, is facing criticism from candidates on his left like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) about his previous support for the Iraq War.
A clear split has also formed among contenders over the benefits of Trump’s competition with China, with some like former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg saying it’s worth pushing back hard on Beijing. And Democrats may even go after each other on their differing answers on Trump’s Soleimani decision.
So, with just a few hours to go until the Iowa debate, here’s a quick guide on what to expect when it comes to foreign policy.
2020 Democrats will bash Trump’s Iran policy and may talk about “assassination”
All six candidates on the stage tonight have criticized Trump’s decision to kill Soleimani because they worried about the chance of a broader escalation with Tehran, though most acknowledged that Soleimani was a bad guy.
That’s why Bishop Garrison, a top foreign policy adviser to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, told me he expects the world affairs portion of the debate will “focus on Iran first and foremost, and the administration’s incoherent story and response.”
“A rational leader and administration likely wouldn’t have engaged the regime in the haphazard way Trump has,” Garrison said.
Ben Rhodes, who was President Obama’s deputy national security adviser and a key figure in promoting the Iran deal, wants Democrats to use the Iran opportunity to dismantle Trump’s foreign policy narrative.
“It’s important that the candidates connect the recent dangers with Iran to Trump’s decision to withdraw from the nuclear deal,” Rhodes told me, “and broaden the conversation beyond one exchange with Iran to the broader failures: Iran’s resuming its nuclear program, the counter-ISIS mission being suspended, and the enduring risk to our personnel in Iraq and the region.”
“I’ll also be looking to see if Democrats are at all defensive in how they go after his Iran record — they shouldn’t be,” he added.
But any attempt to “go after” Trump could be sidelined by a debate over how to frame the Soleimani killing itself.
Sanders has already taken some heat from moderate Democrats and conservatives for calling the Soleimani killing an “assassination” while failing to say anything negative about the Iranian general in his first campaign statement on January 2. That’s a charged term, as Max Fisher and Amanda Taub explained in the New York Times last week:
Assassination is colloquially defined as a killing, or sometimes murder, for political purposes, particularly but not necessarily of a senior political leader ... But there is also a second definition. The United States banned assassination in 1976 but did not define it. Ever since, decades of legal interpretation and precedent-setting have evolved into a legal understanding of assassination that is intricate, disputed and narrower with each administration.
Sanders reiterated that sentiment four days later when he compared the killing with Russian President Vladimir Putin murdering dissidents.
You can't make it up.
Bernie just compared @realDonaldTrump taking out a terrorist responsible for killing hundreds of thousands (including hundreds of Americans) to Putin assassinating his political dissidents. pic.twitter.com/F7awEJrwZm — Michael Ahrens (@michael_ahrens) January 7, 2020
Those statements may lead candidates with more traditional foreign policy views like Biden and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) — both of whom lambasted Soleimani in their statements — to attack Sanders for his stated anti-war stance and accuse him of being too weak on national security.
Buttigieg and Warren have also used “assassination,” but they are not as likely to get the kind of blowback Sanders might. After all, recent polls show Sanders in second place among the candidates, and analysts increasingly think he has a strong chance of winning in Iowa next month. That most likely puts the target on his back more than on the other two, which means he may have to answer for his “assassination” comments.
2020 Democrats may have to reckon with Trump’s China strategy
The day after the debate, Trump and a top Chinese official will sign “phase one” of the president’s long-sought trade deal with Beijing. According to the Wall Street Journal, the deal includes greater access for US companies to Chinese banks and more Chinese purchases of American products. Some tariffs, which Trump placed on Beijing’s US-bound exports to force them to negotiate an agreement, will also be lifted.
That development could put 2020 Democrats at the debate in a tight spot.
Most candidates have trashed Trump’s heavy-handed approach toward China, though some believe it’s important for the US to confront Beijing. “Chinese techno-authoritarianism,” Buttigieg said in a foreign policy speech last year, “present[s] a major challenge to us.”
Yet the candidates are unanimous in wanting trade deals that help American workers. A Trump deal that secures more access for US firms to sell in China could help those same workers — thus putting a dent in Democrats’ criticism of Trump’s approach.
It could lead to especially awkward answers from Sanders and Warren, who have led the left-wing campaign charge in advocating for less free trade and more protections for American workers. They’ll have to balance what could be a decent deal for their base while at the same time smashing Trump for the way he went about making the deal, which involved consistently increasing tariffs until China had no choice but to put pen to paper on something.
They may get an out, though, as Democratic Party leadership has already come out against the deal. “The terms of the agreement will result in very little progress in reforming China’s rapacious trade behaviors and seems like it could send a signal to Chinese negotiators that the US can be steamrolled,” Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the party’s leader in the upper chamber, wrote to Trump on Monday.
It’s possible, some experts say, that a China question could prompt a broader discussion on how the world’s two most important countries should interact in the future. “Power competition should be discussed generally,” Garrison, who is now at the Human Rights First advocacy group, predicts.
But other than that, experts say it’s more than likely that a China section will get a few moments but then the debate will quickly move on.
2020 Democrats will tussle on their war records
One of the most important developments in the race right now is Sanders attacking Biden on his war record. There’s good reason to do that: Biden voted for the Iraq War and continued to support it even after it started to look like a failure.
Sanders has used Trump’s recent actions in Iran to label himself the anti-war candidate while branding Biden as having poor judgment on global issues.
Sanders co-introduced a bill earlier this month to block funding for any military action in Iran and put out a video saying he’s “not sorry” for his long history of opposing US wars. Sanders and fellow progressive Sen. Elizabeth Warren (who wasn’t in office for the vote on Iraq) both lead an anti-war strategy call with liberal MoveOn activists and signed on to a bipartisan Senate resolution saying Congress has not yet approved any war with Iran.
Biden, meanwhile, played up his faith in the military establishment and his place in the Obama White House, which negotiated the Iran nuclear deal in 2015. As Trump seemingly blamed Obama in his Iran “victory” speech last week, Biden went on the offensive, defending his former boss on Twitter.
“He’s been President for three years,” he said of Trump. “It’s time he stops blaming President Obama for his failures.” This line dovetails with Biden’s message that he will be ready to be commander in chief on his first day in office.
It’s likely, then, that this brewing feud will continue onstage.
But punching Biden on foreign policy may not be as effective as Sanders hopes. A CNN poll from last November showed the former vice president is far and away the most trusted on foreign policy among the 2020 Democratic candidates, with Biden beating Sanders 48 percent to 14 percent. Which means attacking Biden on his foreign policy acumen could backfire on the Vermont senator.
Indeed, Sanders likes to brag that he never voted for a defense authorization bill in Congress with Trump in office, but he did so four times with George W. Bush as president. He therefore can’t say that he wasn’t fully opposed to the Iraq War effort, though he couched one of his votes as helping troops who would be in harm’s way regardless of what he did.
“No member in this body disagrees that so long as our troops remain in Iraq, they should have the resources they need in order to protect their lives,” the senator said in 2004 on that year’s defense bill. “We have not done well in this area up to this point, and we must do better.”
But Sanders isn’t the only one looking to tussle with Obama’s former No. 2. Tom Steyer, the New York billionaire, has repeatedly gone on TV to say that years in politics doesn’t necessarily make a better commander in chief.
“What counts is judgment, not experience,” he told MSNBC on Tuesday, hours before the debate. “If you look at what that experience has brought us over the last 20 years, it’s two failed wars, the waste of American lives, and Americans dollars and prestige doing something that didn’t make sense.”
Steyer hasn’t said Biden’s name directly, but it’s clear that’s who he’s mostly referring to. That indicates the former vice president may face attacks on his foreign policy record from all sides during the debate.
Put together, it’s likely that tonight’s debate will offer viewers a clearer picture of how these candidates would handle the world from the Oval Office.
Correction: Tom Steyer is from New York, not Maryland.


vox--2020-01-14--The January Democratic debate, like the slate of Oscar nominees, will be very, very white

January ’ s debate stage , much like this year ’ s slate of Oscar nominees , is going to be very , very white .
In fact , it will be the first debate without a single person of color onstage .
The implications of this change are significant : It could mean that both the debate stage , and the 2020 field writ large , won ’ t be able to offer the diversity of perspectives on policy issues of past months .
And if past debates are any indication , it could also lead to some candidates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year , the range of representation onstage played a noticeable role in how candidates spoke about issues and personal experiences .
In June , Sen. Kamala Harris confronted former Vice President Joe Biden about his work alongside segregationists in the Senate and his opposition to busing , citing her own experience in the process .
In November , Sen. Cory Booker spoke directly about how black voters have felt neglected by the party in the past .
The candidates who will be onstage on Tuesday night are former Vice President Joe Biden , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg , Sen. Amy Klobuchar , and billionaire activist Tom Steyer .
They ’ ve hit specific polling thresholds in either national or state polls , and secured at least 225,000 individual donors to qualify .
The success of white candidates in a field once hailed as the most diverse ever raises some complicated questions about everything from the Democratic National Committee ’ s debate rules to the range of support candidates have garnered this cycle .
Several prominent candidates of color including Sen. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro have dropped out in the past few months , while entrepreneur Andrew Yang and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard failed to meet the necessary polling thresholds to make the January debate stage .
Factors like the primary calendar , coded questions about electability , and media bias are seen as contributing to these outcomes , though these aren ’ t the only ones at play .
In part due to name recognition , Biden and Sanders have maintained strong standing among both white voters and voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ held onto a massive lead on the other candidates when it comes to support from black voters , though this backing is lower among younger voters .
According to a recent Washington Post-Ipsos poll , he currently has 48 percent support from Democratic-leaning black voters and beats Sanders , the next closest candidate , by 28 points .
Harris and Booker both sought to win over black voters to buoy their campaigns , but they continued to trail Biden in support when they decided to drop out .
When Harris left the race @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent support from black voters nationally , while Booker was at 4 percent in that same poll , according to Morning Consult .
Still , it ’ s striking that in a party in which 40 percent of voters are people of color , the debate stage won ’ t be nearly as representative .
It echoes the same issue that advocates are trying to change in Hollywood , where white faces dominate big and small screens .
It ’ s a push that isn ’ t just driven by a sense of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have concrete benefits for society , making people more open-minded , while spurring innovation and creativity .
“ Among the candidates who remain , many are very good on minority outreach and standing up for people of color , but there is absolutely no replacement for actual candidate diversity ... on the most important stage , ” says UCLA political science professor Matt Barreto , a co-founder of the polling group Latino Decisions .
Howard University political science professor Keneshia Grant agrees .
“ Plans are great , but having plans is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ There ’ s some space between words and lived experience.
” The remaining candidates on Thursday ’ s debate stage have varied relationships with voters of color .
Some including Biden and Sanders have built up support from a wider coalition including African American , Latino , and Asian American voters , while others like South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg have struggled to do so .
The debate on Thursday will be an opportunity for candidates to further demonstrate that they can represent a Democratic electorate that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stage itself .
To do so , Grant says that the candidates should be straightforward in the ways that they talk about race , and address how it intersects with different policies including Medicare-for-all and plans to erase student loan debt .
“ The moderators asked a question about race and Bernie Sanders started talking about climate change , ” Grant notes , pointing to a misstep by Sanders in the December debate .
In that moment , even though he was asked point blank about how white the field of candidates is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I will answer that question , but I wanted to get back to the question of climate change , ” he said .
“ With all due respect , this question is about race , can you answer the question as it was asked ?
” PBS journalist Amna Nawaz replied .
Sanders went on to emphasize that people of color would be among those most affected by climate change and noted that candidates had an “ obligation ” to talk about racial disparities .
“ The first thing that people need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specific to race and to be honest about them directly , ” Grant says .
At Tuesday ’ s debate , voters will be looking for candidates to show they ’ re thinking about how these issues affect different groups of people .
On the subject of the wage gap , for example , while women across the board experience disparities , those inequities are much more severe for women of color .
“ I think all voters are hoping ... that [ candidates ] get what it means to be a person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may have actually thought about every one of their policy platforms from the perspective of minority voters , as well as white voters , ” Barreto says .
Voters of color will be central in 2020 Voters of color are set to play a crucial role in the 2020 election , and it ’ s vital that a candidate is able to demonstrate their ability to effectively energize and represent them .
Currently , 84 percent of black voters identify as Democrats or lean Democratic , 63 percent of Hispanic voters do and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , according to Pew Research Center .
Of the overall 2020 electorate , 12.5 percent are projected to be made up of black voters , 13.3 percent will be Hispanic voters and 4.7 percent will be Asian American voters , per Pew .
Turning out voters in all of these groups will be central to Democrats ’ ability to win in 2020 , particularly if the election winds up being as close as it was in 2016 .
In battleground states such as Michigan and Florida , Hillary Clinton lost to President Donald @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent of the vote , respectively .
“ In 2020 the Democratic Party can not win a state or national election without the strong support of black , Latino , and Asian voters , ” Barreto says .
This dynamic is evident based on the shifting demographics across the country , not to mention the results of past cycles .
In several close elections , including the 2017 Senate race for Doug Jones in Alabama , black voters made the difference in the outcome .
In battleground states like Florida and Arizona , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the electorate .
And as things stand , Asian Americans are the quickest growing racial or ethnic group in the country .
Turning out more voters of color has been a major piece of the strategies of Democratic campaigns in battleground states including Georgia , Texas , and Arizona .
While Stacey Abrams did not win her election for the Georgia gubernatorial seat in 2018 , she was the Democrat to come closest to doing so in years after she increased the turnout of black , Latino , and Asian American voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidates handle their performances at Tuesday ’ s date could further illustrate their ability to address a wide-ranging Democratic electorate — or highlight the limitations they still have in doing so .
“ You ’ re not losing white voters by having a diverse debate stage , you might lose minority voters by not having a diverse debate stage , ” UC Riverside political science professor Karthick Ramakrishnan previously told Vox .

January’s debate stage, much like this year’s slate of Oscar nominees, is going to be very, very white.
In fact, it will be the first debate without a single person of color onstage. The implications of this change are significant: It could mean that both the debate stage, and the 2020 field writ large, won’t be able to offer the diversity of perspectives on policy issues of past months. And if past debates are any indication, it could also lead to some candidates skirting questions about race altogether.
Last year, the range of representation onstage played a noticeable role in how candidates spoke about issues and personal experiences. In June, Sen. Kamala Harris confronted former Vice President Joe Biden about his work alongside segregationists in the Senate and his opposition to busing, citing her own experience in the process. In November, Sen. Cory Booker spoke directly about how black voters have felt neglected by the party in the past.
At tonight's #DemDebate, no candidates of color will be on stage. Not one.
I sat down with @TiffanyDCross to talk about what that means for a party propped up by black & brown voters and how it could impact turnout.
Teaser
Full Video: https://t.co/Qw95mAe23H pic.twitter.com/WNt2vDKMl6 — Eugene Daniels (@EugeneDaniels2) January 14, 2020
The candidates who will be onstage on Tuesday night are former Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, and billionaire activist Tom Steyer. They’ve hit specific polling thresholds in either national or state polls, and secured at least 225,000 individual donors to qualify.
The success of white candidates in a field once hailed as the most diverse ever raises some complicated questions about everything from the Democratic National Committee’s debate rules to the range of support candidates have garnered this cycle.
Several prominent candidates of color including Sen. Kamala Harris, Sen. Cory Booker, and former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro have dropped out in the past few months, while entrepreneur Andrew Yang and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard failed to meet the necessary polling thresholds to make the January debate stage. Factors like the primary calendar, coded questions about electability, and media bias are seen as contributing to these outcomes, though these aren’t the only ones at play.
In part due to name recognition, Biden and Sanders have maintained strong standing among both white voters and voters of color. Biden thus far has held onto a massive lead on the other candidates when it comes to support from black voters, though this backing is lower among younger voters. According to a recent Washington Post-Ipsos poll, he currently has 48 percent support from Democratic-leaning black voters and beats Sanders, the next closest candidate, by 28 points.
Harris and Booker both sought to win over black voters to buoy their campaigns, but they continued to trail Biden in support when they decided to drop out. When Harris left the race in December, she was at 9 percent support from black voters nationally, while Booker was at 4 percent in that same poll, according to Morning Consult.
Still, it’s striking that in a party in which 40 percent of voters are people of color, the debate stage won’t be nearly as representative. It echoes the same issue that advocates are trying to change in Hollywood, where white faces dominate big and small screens. It’s a push that isn’t just driven by a sense of fairness: Diversity has repeatedly been found to have concrete benefits for society, making people more open-minded, while spurring innovation and creativity.
“Among the candidates who remain, many are very good on minority outreach and standing up for people of color, but there is absolutely no replacement for actual candidate diversity ... on the most important stage,” says UCLA political science professor Matt Barreto, a co-founder of the polling group Latino Decisions.
Howard University political science professor Keneshia Grant agrees. “Plans are great, but having plans is not enough,” she told Vox. “There’s some space between words and lived experience.”
Tuesday will test white candidates
The remaining candidates on Thursday’s debate stage have varied relationships with voters of color. Some including Biden and Sanders have built up support from a wider coalition including African American, Latino, and Asian American voters, while others like South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg have struggled to do so.
The debate on Thursday will be an opportunity for candidates to further demonstrate that they can represent a Democratic electorate that’s far more diverse than the debate stage itself.
To do so, Grant says that the candidates should be straightforward in the ways that they talk about race, and address how it intersects with different policies including Medicare-for-all and plans to erase student loan debt.
“The moderators asked a question about race and Bernie Sanders started talking about climate change,” Grant notes, pointing to a misstep by Sanders in the December debate. In that moment, even though he was asked point blank about how white the field of candidates is, Sanders initially redirected the question.
“I will answer that question, but I wanted to get back to the question of climate change,” he said. “With all due respect, this question is about race, can you answer the question as it was asked?” PBS journalist Amna Nawaz replied. Sanders went on to emphasize that people of color would be among those most affected by climate change and noted that candidates had an “obligation” to talk about racial disparities.
“The first thing that people need to do is address issues that are specific to race and to be honest about them directly,” Grant says.
At Tuesday’s debate, voters will be looking for candidates to show they’re thinking about how these issues affect different groups of people. On the subject of the wage gap, for example, while women across the board experience disparities, those inequities are much more severe for women of color.
“I think all voters are hoping ... that [candidates] get what it means to be a person of color in America today. That may have actually thought about every one of their policy platforms from the perspective of minority voters, as well as white voters,” Barreto says.
Voters of color will be central in 2020
Voters of color are set to play a crucial role in the 2020 election, and it’s vital that a candidate is able to demonstrate their ability to effectively energize and represent them.
Currently, 84 percent of black voters identify as Democrats or lean Democratic, 63 percent of Hispanic voters do and 65 percent of Asian American voters do, according to Pew Research Center. Of the overall 2020 electorate, 12.5 percent are projected to be made up of black voters, 13.3 percent will be Hispanic voters and 4.7 percent will be Asian American voters, per Pew.
Turning out voters in all of these groups will be central to Democrats’ ability to win in 2020, particularly if the election winds up being as close as it was in 2016. In battleground states such as Michigan and Florida, Hillary Clinton lost to President Donald Trump, by 0.3 percent and 1.2 percent of the vote, respectively.
“In 2020 the Democratic Party cannot win a state or national election without the strong support of black, Latino, and Asian voters,” Barreto says.
This dynamic is evident based on the shifting demographics across the country, not to mention the results of past cycles. In several close elections, including the 2017 Senate race for Doug Jones in Alabama, black voters made the difference in the outcome. In battleground states like Florida and Arizona, Latino voters make up a growing proportion of the electorate. And as things stand, Asian Americans are the quickest growing racial or ethnic group in the country.
Turning out more voters of color has been a major piece of the strategies of Democratic campaigns in battleground states including Georgia, Texas, and Arizona. While Stacey Abrams did not win her election for the Georgia gubernatorial seat in 2018, she was the Democrat to come closest to doing so in years after she increased the turnout of black, Latino, and Asian American voters in the state.
The way that candidates handle their performances at Tuesday’s date could further illustrate their ability to address a wide-ranging Democratic electorate — or highlight the limitations they still have in doing so.
“You’re not losing white voters by having a diverse debate stage, you might lose minority voters by not having a diverse debate stage,” UC Riverside political science professor Karthick Ramakrishnan previously told Vox.


vox--2020-01-14--Trump is diverting another $7.2 billion in military funds to build his border wall

The Pentagon — not Mexico — will again be paying for the construction of President Donald Trump ’ s wall on the US ’ s southern border , to the tune of $ 7.2 billion in 2020 .
According to a Washington Post report , the White House will use last year ’ s national emergency declaration to pull $ 3.5 billion from military counter-drug enforcement , up significantly from the $ 2.5 billion taken from the same program in 2019 .
An additional $ 3.2 billion will be taken from Department of Defense construction projects for additional fencing projects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ times the amount allocated to barrier construction by Congress for 2020 .
The funds transfer would bring the total amount devoted to border wall construction under Trump to $ 18.4 billion .
So far , the administration has only completed about 101 miles of barrier construction , far short of the 450 miles Trump promised to complete by the end of this year .
However , administration officials have recently begun counting miles of fencing under construction — rather than completed — as their goal metric , moving the goalposts on Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perhaps Trump ’ s most prominent 2016 campaign promise and the battle over border wall funding has raged since Trump ’ s first days .
In December 2018 , Trump shut down part of the government for 35 days after he refused to sign a bipartisan spending bill to fund the government in 2019 .
Finally , Congress compromised to give the president $ 1.375 billion for “ existing technologies ” like “ bollard fencing , ” far less than the $ 5.7 billion originally requested by the White House .
When he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the wall money he wanted — Trump got creative , declaring a national emergency in order to divert military funds to build the wall .
That triggered a legal and congressional headache , as Vox ’ s Emily Stewart explained : In trying to get wall funding through the National Emergencies Act , the question then becomes which existing laws he can try to use to get the money .
That ’ s where he — and the legal scholars trying to figure out what he ’ s talking about — run into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he could actually use .
The Brennan Center for Justice tracks about 130 laws that contain special powers Trump could access .
“ It could be that by putting together a lot of different sources of emergency authority , the president could tap a lot of different funds and at least start , ” Kim Lane Scheppele , a professor at the Center for Human Values at Princeton University , told me .
She pointed to a handful of preexisting laws the president could potentially use .
He could , for example , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the wall .
One law allows the defense secretary , after a national emergency declaration , to direct the army ’ s civil works program to construct a structure needed for national defense and use the military budget to do it .
Another lets the secretary direct other military services for construction projects .
For example , money could come out of the budget for building housing on military bases for service members and into the budget for the wall .
The Supreme Court allowed Trump ’ s administrative sidestep , ruling in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ block on $ 2.5 billion in military funding would be lifted , and the money could start being spent on wall construction while litigation against the move continues .
Congress could step in and limit the president ’ s ability to make these transfers , and the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act barred diverting military funds for the wall .
However , that provision was negotiated away in conference meetings to settle differences between it and the Senate version of the bill .
As a result of the 2020 NDAA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , contains no limit on border wall funds diversion .
Trump ’ s border wall quest got another major boost last Thursday when a Fifth Circuit court of appeals panel ruled 2-1 to lift an injunction which stood in the way of a transfer of $ 3.6 billion in military construction funds last year for the wall .
The ruling overturned a stay put into place by El Paso-based federal judge David Briones in a suit brought by the county of El Paso , Texas , and the Border Network for Human Rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ El Paso , arguing that the government did not have a right to divert funds otherwise allocated by Congress .
A New York Times report from last September revealed that 127 military construction projects had been suspended or delayed because of last year ’ s diversion of funds .
There has been no word yet on whether those or any additional projects will be delayed because of this year ’ s transfer of border funds .
Correction : The Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to start using Pentagon funding to begin construction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ litigation against the move to the appeals court .

The Pentagon — not Mexico — will again be paying for the construction of President Donald Trump’s wall on the US’s southern border, to the tune of $7.2 billion in 2020.
According to a Washington Post report, the White House will use last year’s national emergency declaration to pull $3.5 billion from military counter-drug enforcement, up significantly from the $2.5 billion taken from the same program in 2019. An additional $3.2 billion will be taken from Department of Defense construction projects for additional fencing projects. The number is more than five times the amount allocated to barrier construction by Congress for 2020.
The funds transfer would bring the total amount devoted to border wall construction under Trump to $18.4 billion. So far, the administration has only completed about 101 miles of barrier construction, far short of the 450 miles Trump promised to complete by the end of this year. However, administration officials have recently begun counting miles of fencing under construction — rather than completed — as their goal metric, moving the goalposts on Trump’s promise.
The border wall was perhaps Trump’s most prominent 2016 campaign promise and the battle over border wall funding has raged since Trump’s first days. In December 2018, Trump shut down part of the government for 35 days after he refused to sign a bipartisan spending bill to fund the government in 2019. Finally, Congress compromised to give the president $1.375 billion for “existing technologies” like “bollard fencing,” far less than the $5.7 billion originally requested by the White House.
When he reopened the government — without most of the wall money he wanted — Trump got creative, declaring a national emergency in order to divert military funds to build the wall. That triggered a legal and congressional headache, as Vox’s Emily Stewart explained:
In trying to get wall funding through the National Emergencies Act, the question then becomes which existing laws he can try to use to get the money. That’s where he — and the legal scholars trying to figure out what he’s talking about — run into trouble: identifying the laws and statutes he could actually use. The Brennan Center for Justice tracks about 130 laws that contain special powers Trump could access. “It could be that by putting together a lot of different sources of emergency authority, the president could tap a lot of different funds and at least start,” Kim Lane Scheppele, a professor at the Center for Human Values at Princeton University, told me. She pointed to a handful of preexisting laws the president could potentially use. He could, for example, reallocate military spending on construction projects for the wall. One law allows the defense secretary, after a national emergency declaration, to direct the army’s civil works program to construct a structure needed for national defense and use the military budget to do it. Another lets the secretary direct other military services for construction projects. For example, money could come out of the budget for building housing on military bases for service members and into the budget for the wall.
The Supreme Court allowed Trump’s administrative sidestep, ruling in July that a lower court’s block on $2.5 billion in military funding would be lifted, and the money could start being spent on wall construction while litigation against the move continues.
Congress could step in and limit the president’s ability to make these transfers, and the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act barred diverting military funds for the wall. However, that provision was negotiated away in conference meetings to settle differences between it and the Senate version of the bill. As a result of the 2020 NDAA, which was signed in late December, contains no limit on border wall funds diversion.
Trump’s border wall quest got another major boost last Thursday when a Fifth Circuit court of appeals panel ruled 2-1 to lift an injunction which stood in the way of a transfer of $3.6 billion in military construction funds last year for the wall. The ruling overturned a stay put into place by El Paso-based federal judge David Briones in a suit brought by the county of El Paso, Texas, and the Border Network for Human Rights, an immigrant advocacy group based in El Paso, arguing that the government did not have a right to divert funds otherwise allocated by Congress.
A New York Times report from last September revealed that 127 military construction projects had been suspended or delayed because of last year’s diversion of funds. There has been no word yet on whether those or any additional projects will be delayed because of this year’s transfer of border funds.
Correction: The Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to start using Pentagon funding to begin construction on border barriers, while returning the litigation against the move to the appeals court.


vox--2020-01-14--Trump: Saudi Arabia paid the US $1 billion for more troops. Pentagon: Eh, not quite.

During an interview on Laura Ingraham ’ s Fox News show Friday night , President Donald Trump made a stunning announcement : Saudi Arabia was paying the US $ 1 billion to send US troops to defend it from Iran .
“ We ’ re sending more [ troops ] to Saudi Arabia , and Saudi Arabia is paying us for it , ” Trump said .
“ I said , ‘ Listen , you ’ re a very rich country .
You want more troops ?
I ’ m going to send them to you , but you have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paying us .
They ’ ve already deposited $ 1 billion in the bank.
” Critics , including Rep. Justin Amash ( I-MI ) , slammed the move , accusing Trump of using American troops as “ paid mercenaries.
” “ He sells troops , ” Amash tweeted .
On MSNBC , Rep. Barbara Lee ( D-CA ) raised the possibility that Trump deposited the Saudi money in a personal bank account and said the president is “ selling our soldiers as mercenaries to foreign governments.
” “ It ’ s outrageous , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not deserve to be the commander in chief of the United States of America.
” As is often the case when it comes to Trump , the details of this purported transaction with Saudi Arabia are murky .
Ingraham didn ’ t ask any follow-up questions about it , and Trump didn ’ t offer any additional details .
Though the Pentagon did announce last October that it would send troops to Saudi Arabia to defend the country against Iran , there had been no reporting about Saudi Arabia financially compensating the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ questions : Into which bank account did Saudi Arabia deposit the $ 1 billion ?
What exactly are US troops doing over there ?
And did this transaction even happen , or was the president just making stuff up ?
Days later , we ’ ve learned a bit more about what Trump was talking about .
And it seems the president , as he often does , was exaggerating .
In a statement to Vox , Pentagon spokesperson Cmdr .
Rebecca Rebarich said , “ The Department of Defense has engaged Saudi @ @ @ @ @ @ @ support regional security and dissuade hostility and aggression.
” But the statement did not specify whether any sort of financial transaction took place — on the contrary , it said that “ discussions are ongoing to formalize these contributions.
” Consistent with the president ’ s guidance to increase partner burden-sharing , the Department of Defense has engaged Saudi Arabia on contributing to US activities that support regional security and dissuade hostility and aggression .
The Saudi government has agreed to contribute to the costs of these activities , and discussions are ongoing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this nature do not lead to the deployment of additional US forces , and they do not drive DoD to take on new missions or responsibilities .
“ Discussions are ongoing ” is quite different from Trump ’ s unequivocal claim that Saudi Arabia had “ already deposited $ 1 billion in the bank.
” Trump ’ s comments came during an interview in which he bragged about war crimes , told blatant lies about the FBI , and said he feels no obligation to publicly detail the intelligence underpinning his decision to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ official that brought the country to the brink of war .
Any of those remarks from the mouth of the president would ’ ve likely generated a major scandal in a previous era .
But three years in , Trump has normalized gaslighting and authoritarian rhetoric to such an extent that this interview with Ingraham barely registered as a blip on the news radar .
The news moves fast .
To stay updated , follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter , and read more of Vox ’ s policy and politics coverage .

During an interview on Laura Ingraham’s Fox News show Friday night, President Donald Trump made a stunning announcement: Saudi Arabia was paying the US $1 billion to send US troops to defend it from Iran.
“We’re sending more [troops] to Saudi Arabia, and Saudi Arabia is paying us for it,” Trump said. “I said, ‘Listen, you’re a very rich country. You want more troops? I’m going to send them to you, but you have to pay us.’ They’re paying us. They’ve already deposited $1 billion in the bank.”
TRUMP brags about turning the US military into a mercenary force: "We're sending more [troops] to Saudi Arabia, and Saudi Arabia is paying us for it ... they're paying us. They've already deposited $1 billion in the bank." pic.twitter.com/8mINgc02h2 — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 11, 2020
Critics, including Rep. Justin Amash (I-MI), slammed the move, accusing Trump of using American troops as “paid mercenaries.” “He sells troops,” Amash tweeted.
On MSNBC, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) raised the possibility that Trump deposited the Saudi money in a personal bank account and said the president is “selling our soldiers as mercenaries to foreign governments.”
“It’s outrageous,” Lee added. “He does not deserve to be the commander in chief of the United States of America.”
As is often the case when it comes to Trump, the details of this purported transaction with Saudi Arabia are murky. Ingraham didn’t ask any follow-up questions about it, and Trump didn’t offer any additional details.
Though the Pentagon did announce last October that it would send troops to Saudi Arabia to defend the country against Iran, there had been no reporting about Saudi Arabia financially compensating the US.
Trump’s comments immediately raised questions: Into which bank account did Saudi Arabia deposit the $1 billion? What exactly are US troops doing over there? And did this transaction even happen, or was the president just making stuff up?
Days later, we’ve learned a bit more about what Trump was talking about. And it seems the president, as he often does, was exaggerating.
In a statement to Vox, Pentagon spokesperson Cmdr. Rebecca Rebarich said, “The Department of Defense has engaged Saudi Arabia on contributing to US activities that support regional security and dissuade hostility and aggression.”
But the statement did not specify whether any sort of financial transaction took place — on the contrary, it said that “discussions are ongoing to formalize these contributions.”
Here’s Rebarich’s statement in full:
Consistent with the president’s guidance to increase partner burden-sharing, the Department of Defense has engaged Saudi Arabia on contributing to US activities that support regional security and dissuade hostility and aggression. The Saudi government has agreed to contribute to the costs of these activities, and discussions are ongoing to formalize these contributions. Contributions of this nature do not lead to the deployment of additional US forces, and they do not drive DoD to take on new missions or responsibilities.
“Discussions are ongoing” is quite different from Trump’s unequivocal claim that Saudi Arabia had “already deposited $1 billion in the bank.”
Trump’s comments came during an interview in which he bragged about war crimes, told blatant lies about the FBI, and said he feels no obligation to publicly detail the intelligence underpinning his decision to approve a military strike against an Iranian official that brought the country to the brink of war.
Any of those remarks from the mouth of the president would’ve likely generated a major scandal in a previous era. But three years in, Trump has normalized gaslighting and authoritarian rhetoric to such an extent that this interview with Ingraham barely registered as a blip on the news radar.
Sean Collins contributed reporting to this article.
The news moves fast. To stay updated, follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter, and read more of Vox’s policy and politics coverage.