vox--2020-01-28--Trump’s defense in the impeachment trial has ended. Here are 6 key moments.

In arguments that intermittently advanced conspiracy theories , attacked the whistleblower and questioned House Democrats ’ fact pattern , President Donald Trump ’ s defense counsel made a haphazard case against impeachment this week .
Over the course of three days , a panel of attorneys including , notably , Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz , argued that Democrats were attempting to invalidate the results of the 2016 election .
“ They ’ ve basically said , ‘ Let ’ s cancel an election over a meeting with Ukraine , ’ ” White House counsel Pat Cipollone said .
Counsel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggesting that Trump didn ’ t commit the offenses he is charged with , and that even if he had , they do not meet the threshold for removal from office .
The House has charged the president with abuse of power over his attempt to coerce a foreign country to investigate one of his political opponents , and obstruction of Congress over his attempt to stonewall lawmakers ’ inquiry into that matter .
House Democrats had anticipated several of these points , and offered their own counterarguments ahead of time : They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Congress to check presidents when they ’ ve abused their power and pointed to constitutional scholars who ’ ve argued that a crime is not needed to warrant impeachment .
Ultimately , Trump ’ s counsel was focused on keeping the trial short , in order to move toward a speedy acquittal : They needed to provide Senate Republicans just enough cover to say that they ’ d heard enough , and to conclude that more witness testimony isn ’ t necessary .
Revelations leaked from former National Security Adviser John Bolton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that plan , but Trump ’ s team worked to downplay them .
And given GOP lawmakers ’ existing focus on acquitting the president quickly , it ’ s likely that this case resonated .
Trump ’ s counsel called out lack of firsthand testimony — inadvertently making the case for more witnesses Trump ’ s defense attempted to cast doubt on the facts that have been presented during the impeachment trial , and in doing so , inadvertently helped make the case for calling more witnesses .
Trump ’ s counsel on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats cited did not have firsthand knowledge about the quid pro quo the president engaged in with Ukraine .
“ Most of the Democrats ’ witnesses have never spoken to the president at all , let alone about Ukraine , ” Trump attorney Mike Purpura said .
“ All Democrats have to support the alleged link between security assistance and investigations are Ambassador Sondland ’ s assumptions and presumptions.
” Sondland and other officials including State Department official David Holmes testified to their understanding of this quid pro quo and said that there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of facts that were presented to them .
But , as Trump ’ s counsel were able to point out , neither of them were explicitly told this was a quid pro quo in stark terms .
And Sondland ’ s credibility , in particular , was questioned .
In perhaps one of the most effective moments of the Republicans ’ arguments , counsel displayed a supercut of Sondland ’ s testimony in the House during which he repeatedly said that his conclusions were based on his own “ assumptions.
” “ In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ variations of the words presume , assume , guess , speculate , and belief over 30 times , ” Purpura said .
But since Purpura made that argument , a New York Times report has come out , revealing a bombshell from Bolton , who ’ s said that he was directly told by Trump about the quid pro quo between military aid and political investigations .
Democrats emphasized that Republicans ’ arguments have only bolstered the case for including more witnesses who have direct knowledge about the quid pro quo .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why the Senate should call witnesses and documents , ” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters .
“ They kept saying there are no eyewitness accounts , but there are people who have eyewitness accounts.
” Ken Starr railed on the “ age of impeachment ” Starr , the independent counsel who conducted the investigation that led to former President Bill Clinton ’ s impeachment , is now over impeachment , it appears .
In remarks heavily laced with irony , Starr argued that impeachment — as a means for Congress to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used far too often .
“ The Senate is being called to sit as the high court of impeachment all too frequently , ” Starr said .
“ Indeed , we are living in what I think can aptly be described as the ‘ Age of Impeachment.
’ ” As Vox ’ s Sean Collins notes , these arguments were were presented against the backdrop of Starr ’ s own involvement in past impeachment proceedings : Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi highlighted media reports that had previously raised concerns about Hunter Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Burisma , a Ukrainian natural gas company .
It ’ s a subject Trump ’ s defense has been keen to focus on to demonstrate that the president was attempting to root out corruption in his requests to President Volodymyr Zelensky .
Democrats , however , have provided detailed evidence to demonstrate that Trump ’ s request to Zelensky was singularly focused on this political investigation and not broader corruption .
A debunked conspiracy theory had also suggested that part of the reason Joe Biden pushed to fire Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ further scrutiny .
There is no evidence to indicate this was the case , a point that House impeachment manager Rep. Sylvia Garcia emphasized .
“ Every witness with knowledge of this issue testified that Vice President Biden was carrying out official US policy , ” she said .
Bondi suggested that Trump ’ s defense team focused on the Bidens because House impeachment managers had done so first , even though it was likely they would have done so either way .
“ We would prefer not to be discussing this , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ squarely at issue , so we must address it , ” Bondi said .
Alan Dershowitz tried to diffuse the Bolton bombshell Trump counsel Alan Dershowitz attempted to neutralize the New York Times ’ s Bolton bombshell by arguing that it simply doesn ’ t matter .
Dershowitz , in his remarks on Monday , said that the explicit outlining of a quid pro quo in Bolton ’ s manuscript does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense .
“ Nothing in the Bolton revelations , even if true , would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of power or an impeachable offense , ” Dershowitz said .
“ That is clear from the history , that is clear from the language of the Constitution .
You can not turn conduct that is not impeachable into impeachable conduct , simply by using words like quid pro quo and personal benefit.
” The central point of Dershowitz ’ s remarks was that the impeachment of a president required a crime , a perspective that many constitutional scholars disagree with .
Sekulow rounded out the defense arguments by calling on lawmakers to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , arguing that the recent report doesn ’ t qualify as evidence given its reliance on unnamed sources who had seen the book .
“ You can not impeach a president on an unsourced allegation , ” Sekulow said .
The Bolton revelations have played a major role in renewing pressure on Republican senators to consider hearing witnesses who have direct knowledge about Trump ’ s handling of Ukraine aid .
Trump ’ s counsel , however , has argued that the allegations aren ’ t substantive enough to be considered — and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do not constitute an impeachable act .
Bolton ’ s manuscript , of course , only further strengthens Democrats ’ comprehensive slate of evidence noting how Trump conditioned military aid on political favors .
Whether enough senators want to hear from him , however , is an open question .
Trump ’ s counsel used Democrats ’ own words against them Much like the House impeachment managers , Trump ’ s counsel dug up some old video clips , in order to use Democrats ’ past words against them .
As part of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ played clips of a number of prominent Democrats including Reps. Jerry Nadler and Zoe Lofgren , as well as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer , to show how their perspectives on impeachment had changed since the 1990s .
“ If you look to the words from the past that I think are instructive , they ’ re instructive because they were right then and they ’ re right now , ” Cipollone said .
These clips featured Democrats making several of the same arguments that Republicans used this time around , including arguing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not be leveraged on a partisan basis .
“ There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment , ” Nadler said .
“ By these actions you would undo the free election that expressed the will of the American people in 1996 , ” Lofgren said .
“ My fear is that when a Republican wins , the White House Democrats will demand payback , ” Schumer said .
The House impeachment managers employed a similar tactic when they played clips of Sen. Lindsey Graham ’ s remarks as a House manager .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ quite effective , drawing a visceral reaction from senators in the audience , and demonstrating how much positions have shifted for lawmakers in both parties .

In arguments that intermittently advanced conspiracy theories, attacked the whistleblower, and questioned House Democrats’ fact pattern, President Trump’s defense counsel made a haphazard case against convicting the president in the impeachment trial this week.
Over three days, a panel of attorneys including, notably, Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz, argued that Democrats were attempting to invalidate the results of the 2016 election.
“They’ve basically said, ‘Let’s cancel an election over a meeting with Ukraine,’” White House counsel Pat Cipollone said.
Counsel also tried to thread the needle, suggesting that Trump didn’t commit the offenses he is charged with, and that even if he had, they do not meet the threshold for removal from office. The House has charged the president with abuse of power over his attempt to coerce a foreign country to investigate one of his political opponents, and obstruction of Congress over his attempt to stonewall lawmakers’ inquiry into that matter.
House Democrats had anticipated several of these points and offered counterarguments ahead of time: They noted that the purpose of impeachment was for Congress to check presidents when they’ve abused their power and pointed to constitutional scholars who’ve argued that a crime is not needed to warrant impeachment.
Ultimately, Trump’s counsel was focused on keeping the trial short, in order to move toward a speedy acquittal: They needed to provide Senate Republicans just enough cover to say that they’d heard enough and conclude that more witness testimony isn’t necessary.
Revelations leaked from former National Security Adviser John Bolton’s forthcoming book might have complicated that plan, but Trump’s team worked to downplay them. And given GOP lawmakers’ focus on acquitting the president quickly, it’s likely that this case resonated.
Trump’s counsel called out a lack of firsthand testimony — inadvertently making the case for more witnesses
Trump’s defense attempted to cast doubt on the facts that have been presented during the impeachment trial and, in doing so, inadvertently helped make the case for calling more witnesses.
Trump’s counsel on Saturday argued that many of the individuals Democrats cited did not have firsthand knowledge about the quid pro quo the president is accused of engaging in with Ukraine.
“Most of the Democrats’ witnesses have never spoken to the president at all, let alone about Ukraine,” Trump attorney Mike Purpura said. “All Democrats have to support the alleged link between security assistance and investigations are Ambassador Sondland’s assumptions and presumptions.”
Sondland and State Department official David Holmes testified to their understanding of this quid pro quo and said there was no other explanation for the facts that were presented to them. But, as Trump’s team was able to point out, neither of them were explicitly told this was a quid pro quo in stark terms. Sondland’s credibility, in particular, was questioned.
In perhaps one of the most effective moments of the Republicans’ arguments, counsel displayed a supercut of Sondland’s testimony in the House during which he repeatedly said that his conclusions were based on his own “assumptions.”
“In his public testimony, Ambassador Sondland used variations of the words presume, assume, guess, speculate, and belief over 30 times,” Purpura said.
But since Purpura made that argument, a New York Times report has come out revealing that Bolton has said he was directly told by Trump about the quid pro quo between military aid and political investigations. Democrats emphasized that Republicans’ arguments have only bolstered the case for including more witnesses who have direct knowledge about the alleged quid pro quo.
“They made a really compelling case for why the Senate should call witnesses and documents,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told reporters. “They kept saying there are no eyewitness accounts, but there are people who have eyewitness accounts.”
Ken Starr railed against the “age of impeachment”
Starr, the independent counsel who conducted the investigation that led to President Bill Clinton’s impeachment, is now over impeachment, it appears.
In remarks heavily laced with irony, Starr argued that impeachment — as a means for Congress to check the president — was now being used far too often.
“The Senate is being called to sit as the high court of impeachment all too frequently,” Starr said. “Indeed, we are living in what I think can aptly be described as the ‘Age of Impeachment.’”
As Vox’s Sean Collins notes, these arguments were presented against the backdrop of Starr’s involvement in past impeachment proceedings:
He led Republican efforts in the House to investigate Clinton, and published his findings in what became known as the Starr Report, a document that was far more showy than Mueller’s work, and one that made an express recommendation, finding Clinton’s conduct “may constitute grounds for impeachment.”
Trump’s counsel redirected attention to Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and Burisma
Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi highlighted media reports that had previously raised concerns about Hunter Biden’s seat on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian natural gas company.
It’s a subject Trump’s defense has been keen to focus on to suggest that the president was attempting to root out corruption in his requests to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Democrats, however, have provided detailed evidence to demonstrate that Trump’s request to Zelensky was singularly focused on this political investigation and not broader corruption.
A debunked conspiracy theory had also suggested that part of the reason Joe Biden pushed to fire Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin was to protect his son Hunter Biden from further scrutiny.
There is no evidence that this was the case, a point that House impeachment manager Rep. Sylvia Garcia emphasized. “Every witness with knowledge of this issue testified that Vice President Biden was carrying out official US policy,” she said.
Bondi suggested that Trump’s defense team focused on the Bidens because House impeachment managers had done so first, even though it was likely they would have done so either way.
“We would prefer not to be discussing this, but the House managers have placed this squarely at issue, so we must address it,” Bondi said.
Alan Dershowitz tried to diffuse the Bolton news
Trump counsel Alan Dershowitz attempted to neutralize the New York Times’s Bolton report by arguing that it simply doesn’t matter.
In his remarks on Monday, Dershowitz said that the explicit outlining of a quid pro quo in Bolton’s manuscript does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.
“Nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, would rise to the level of an abuse of power or an impeachable offense,” Dershowitz said. “That is clear from the history, that is clear from the language of the Constitution. You cannot turn conduct that is not impeachable into impeachable conduct, simply by using words like quid pro quo and personal benefit.”
The central point of Dershowitz’s remarks was that the impeachment of a president required a crime, a perspective that many constitutional scholars disagree with.
Jay Sekulow asks lawmakers to ignore the Bolton allegation
Sekulow rounded out the defense arguments by calling on lawmakers to disregard the revelations from the Bolton manuscript, arguing that the Times’s report doesn’t qualify as evidence given its reliance on unnamed sources who had seen the book.
“You cannot impeach a president on an unsourced allegation,” Sekulow said.
The Bolton revelations have played a major role in renewing pressure on Republican senators to consider hearing witnesses who have direct knowledge about Trump’s handling of Ukraine aid. Trump’s counsel, however, has argued that the allegations aren’t substantive enough to be considered — and that even if true, they do not constitute an impeachable act.
Bolton’s manuscript, of course, only further strengthens Democrats’ comprehensive slate of evidence noting how Trump conditioned military aid on political favors. Whether enough senators want to hear from Bolton, however, is an open question.
Trump’s counsel used Democrats’ own words against them
Much like the House impeachment managers, Trump’s counsel dug up some old video clips in order to use Democrats’ past words against them.
As part of their closing, Trump’s lawyers played clips of a number of prominent Democrats, including Reps. Jerry Nadler, Zoe Lofgren, and Schumer, to show how their perspectives on impeachment had changed since the 1990s.
“If you look to the words from the past that I think are instructive, they’re instructive because they were right then and they’re right now,” Cipollone said.
These clips featured Democrats making several of the same arguments during Clinton’s impeachment trial that Republicans used this time around, including arguing, for example, that impeachment should not be leveraged on a partisan basis.
“There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment,” Nadler said. “By these actions you would undo the free election that expressed the will of the American people in 1996,” Lofgren said. “My fear is that when a Republican wins, the White House Democrats will demand payback,” Schumer said.
The House impeachment managers employed a similar tactic when they played clips of Sen. Lindsey Graham’s remarks as a House manager during the 1998 trial. In both cases, this method was quite effective, drawing a visceral reaction from senators in the audience and demonstrating how much positions have shifted for lawmakers in both parties.


vox--2020-01-29--Netflix is turning One Piece, one of the biggest comics ever, into a live-action show

To the delight of treasure-hunting pirates everywhere , Netflix announced Wednesday that it will debut a live-action adaptation of One Piece , the bestselling manga franchise in Japanese history , on its streaming platform later this year .
In a note handwritten in Japanese for the announcement , series creator Oda Eiichiro announced that Netflix ’ s One Piece will launch with a 10-episode initial season , and asked fans to be patient for more details .
The official One Piece Netflix Twitter account further clarified that Oda would be overseeing the production , which would be co-written by geek @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lost ) and Matt Owens ( Luke Cage , Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. )
.
Oda has been planning the live-action adaptation of the series since at least 2017 , when he first announced his intent to make the show as part of the manga ’ s 20th anniversary celebration .
One Piece has published regularly in Weekly Shōnen Jump , Japan ’ s most popular manga magazine , ever since it began in 1997 .
With over 1,000 individual chapters , it holds a Guinness World Record for the most number of comics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ topped the bestseller list of Japanese comics for the last 14 years straight .
More than 450 million One Piece comics have been sold globally since its inception , making One Piece second only to Batman as the bestselling comic in history .
Despite the series ’ massive popularity — or perhaps because of it — Oda ’ s streaming platform of choice gave many fans pause .
While Oda thanked Netflix for its “ tremendous production support , ” Netflix hasn ’ t entirely earned the trust of fans — as you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fans showed in response to the announcement , as evidenced by this meme : Other fans were more positive , citing Netflix ’ s recent live-action adaptation of novel-turned-video-game-franchise The Witcher as a faithful , fan-friendly success that could boost the series ’ profile .
Netflix ’ s continued interest in anime shows no sign of waning , in part because the wealth of anime series available for streaming gives the company an edge in the streaming wars .
Despite 2017 ’ s critically panned live-action adaptation of Death Note , Netflix seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ popular classic anime series like Full Metal Alchemist , alongside their spinoffs like Full Metal Alchemist : Brotherhood .
The platform made inroads last year with an important , if controversial , re-release of the vital , groundbreaking anime Neon Genesis Evangelion , alongside new installments in that franchise .
Most relevant is that Netflix is also producing a live-action adaptation of another foundational anime , Cowboy Bebop .
Netflix ’ s take on the classic series ( a cult 1990s hit that ’ s something of a space Western ) was at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has recently delayed production due to star John Cho ’ s injury .
The company has also invested heavily in producing original anime series , launching more than 30 exclusive shows globally in 2018 alone .
It recently announced the development of a live-action Witcher anime , a follow-up to the massively popular live-action fantasy series .
Clearly this is a space Netflix is determined to keep inhabiting , even if it makes fans nervous .
But back in 2017 , Oda clearly anticipated fans ’ unease .
As part of the 2017 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justice to the story of Luffy the Pirate King and his faithful companions .
“ Firstly , ” he said , “ ‘ I will never betray the fans who have supported me for 20 years.
’ This is my condition .
There may be many who are uneasy , but please , give me your voices of hope.
” In other words , fans who ’ ve trusted Oda with the story he ’ s helmed for over two decades should keep the faith .
For our part , if you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there ’ s only one correct answer :

To the delight of treasure-hunting pirates everywhere, Netflix announced Wednesday that it will debut a live-action adaptation of One Piece, the bestselling manga franchise in Japanese history, on its streaming platform later this year.
In a note handwritten in Japanese for the announcement, series creator Oda Eiichiro announced that Netflix’s One Piece will launch with a 10-episode initial season, and asked fans to be patient for more details. The official One Piece Netflix Twitter account further clarified that Oda would be overseeing the production, which would be co-written by geek franchise veterans Steven Maeda (X-Files, Lost) and Matt Owens (Luke Cage, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.).
Oda has been planning the live-action adaptation of the series since at least 2017, when he first announced his intent to make the show as part of the manga’s 20th anniversary celebration. One Piece has published regularly in Weekly Shōnen Jump, Japan’s most popular manga magazine, ever since it began in 1997. With over 1,000 individual chapters, it holds a Guinness World Record for the most number of comics published by a single author and has topped the bestseller list of Japanese comics for the last 14 years straight. More than 450 million One Piece comics have been sold globally since its inception, making One Piece second only to Batman as the bestselling comic in history.
Despite the series’ massive popularity — or perhaps because of it — Oda’s streaming platform of choice gave many fans pause. While Oda thanked Netflix for its “tremendous production support,” Netflix hasn’t entirely earned the trust of fans — as you can see from the initial skepticism some fans showed in response to the announcement, as evidenced by this meme:
Other fans were more positive, citing Netflix’s recent live-action adaptation of novel-turned-video-game-franchise The Witcher as a faithful, fan-friendly success that could boost the series’ profile.
If One Piece on Netflix is good, this could be GREAT news for One Piece as a whole. Look what a great Netflix series has done for The Witcher. It’s boosted the popularity of the series overall, boosting sales of the books and the games, to the point books sold out at bookstores! — Noah @ Golden Deer And FFXIV Hell (@ThousandSundae) January 29, 2020
Netflix’s continued interest in anime shows no sign of waning, in part because the wealth of anime series available for streaming gives the company an edge in the streaming wars. Despite 2017’s critically panned live-action adaptation of Death Note, Netflix seems to have had ongoing success bringing fans popular classic anime series like Full Metal Alchemist, alongside their spinoffs like Full Metal Alchemist: Brotherhood. The platform made inroads last year with an important, if controversial, re-release of the vital, groundbreaking anime Neon Genesis Evangelion, alongside new installments in that franchise.
Most relevant is that Netflix is also producing a live-action adaptation of another foundational anime, Cowboy Bebop. Netflix’s take on the classic series (a cult 1990s hit that’s something of a space Western) was at first slated for a 2020 release but has recently delayed production due to star John Cho’s injury.
The company has also invested heavily in producing original anime series, launching more than 30 exclusive shows globally in 2018 alone. It recently announced the development of a Witcher anime feature film, a follow-up to the massively popular live-action fantasy series. Clearly this is a space Netflix is determined to keep inhabiting, even if it makes fans nervous.
But back in 2017, Oda clearly anticipated fans’ unease. As part of the 2017 announcement, he vowed to do live-action justice to the story of Luffy the Pirate King and his faithful companions. “Firstly,” he said, “‘I will never betray the fans who have supported me for 20 years.’ This is my condition. There may be many who are uneasy, but please, give me your voices of hope.”
In other words, fans who’ve trusted Oda with the story he’s helmed for over two decades should keep the faith. For our part, if you’re wondering whether we’re excited, there’s only one correct answer:


vox--2020-01-29--“Erase all doubt”: Democrats explain why John Bolton’s testimony is so necessary

Lead House impeachment manager Adam Schiff spelled out why lawmakers should call for John Bolton ’ s testimony during a senator question-and-answer session on Wednesday : Bolton has the firsthand information that could upend President Donald Trump ’ s defense .
“ If you have any question about [ Trump ’ s actions ] at all , you need to hear from his former national security adviser .
Don ’ t wait for the book , ” Schiff said .
“ We think the case is overwhelmingly clear without John Bolton , but if you have any question about it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Over and over , as they responded to questions about the facts of the case , the managers urged senators to subpoena Bolton so they could learn directly about his knowledge of a quid pro quo between Trump and the Ukraine government .
The House impeachment articles stated that Trump abused his power by conditioning military aid to Ukraine on the announcement of political investigations into the Bidens and alleged 2016 election interference .
Bolton , in a new book manuscript , says Trump explicitly told him about conditioning aid on the political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York Times released this week .
That report has since spurred fresh interest in hearing from witnesses during the trial , and the impeachment managers on Wednesday emphasized that such testimony could allay some of Republicans ’ chief questions about Trump ’ s motivations .
“ All quid pro quos are not the same .
Some are legitimate , and some are corrupt .
And you don ’ t have to be a mind reader to figure out which is which .
For one thing , you can ask John Bolton , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revelations and potential testimony are so explosive because they undercut a central part of Trump ’ s defense argument : Attorneys for the president have argued that there have been no specific witnesses that Trump told directly about the quid pro quo .
Trump ’ s defense team has argued his behavior doesn ’ t rise to the level of an impeachable offense , even with Bolton ’ s account .
Lawyers have also suggested that if his account was really that crucial , Democrats should have worked harder to secure witnesses for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Bolton was not deposed during the House inquiry because the president directed administration officials not to testify .
They also said they refrained from issuing Bolton a subpoena because of the extensive legal battle that would ensue .
( A similar fight over a House subpoena issued to former White House counsel Don McGahn , for example , has been ongoing for months . )
It is worth noting that questions remain about how calling witnesses would work .
If Democrats wanted to call Bolton , for example , Republicans have suggested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one-for-one trade for someone they are interested in , like Hunter Biden .
Democrats , however , have chafed at that suggestion , since they don ’ t see Hunter Biden as having any direct knowledge about Trump ’ s wrongdoing — the focal point of this trial .
And because of the uncertainty about the actual terms of witness testimony , both sides have been able to offer conflicting visions of what that process would look like .
Take Trump counsel Patrick Philbin ’ s scenario : “ It ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president would have an opportunity to call his witnesses .
If the body were to go in that direction , this would have to drag on for months and prevent it from getting its business done.
” But impeachment manager Hakeem Jeffries on Wednesday emphasized that Congress would be able to address witness testimony in an “ expeditious fashion , ” citing the House ’ s own inquiry when up to five witnesses were deposed in a week .
Jeffries noted , too , that Chief Justice John Roberts could help settle any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ applied to bar Bolton from speaking , preventing extensive legal battles from playing out .
House managers are making their arguments at a pivotal time .
This Friday , the Senate will vote on whether it ’ s interested in calling more witnesses for the trial or if it ’ s content to move to a quick acquittal .
As of Tuesday , Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had said he didn ’ t yet have the votes to block witness testimony altogether .
Managers , in their remarks on Wednesday , attempted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who had yet to make up their minds .
“ In every single [ impeachment ] trial , there were witnesses .
Why should the president be treated differently ?
” Jeffries said .

Lead House impeachment manager Adam Schiff spelled out why lawmakers should call for John Bolton’s testimony during a senator question-and-answer session on Wednesday: Bolton has the firsthand information that could upend President Donald Trump’s defense.
“If you have any question about [Trump’s actions] at all, you need to hear from his former national security adviser. Don’t wait for the book,” Schiff said. “We think the case is overwhelmingly clear without John Bolton, but if you have any question about it, you can erase all doubt.”
Over and over, as they responded to questions about the facts of the case, the managers urged senators to subpoena Bolton so they could learn directly about his knowledge of a quid pro quo between Trump and the Ukraine government. The House impeachment articles stated that Trump abused his power by conditioning military aid to Ukraine on the announcement of political investigations into the Bidens and alleged 2016 election interference.
Bolton, in a new book manuscript, says Trump explicitly told him about conditioning aid on the political favor, according to a report the New York Times released this week. That report has since spurred fresh interest in hearing from witnesses during the trial, and the impeachment managers on Wednesday emphasized that such testimony could allay some of Republicans’ chief questions about Trump’s motivations.
“All quid pro quos are not the same. Some are legitimate, and some are corrupt. And you don’t have to be a mind reader to figure out which is which. For one thing, you can ask John Bolton,” Schiff said.
Bolton’s revelations and potential testimony are so explosive because they undercut a central part of Trump’s defense argument: Attorneys for the president have argued that there have been no specific witnesses that Trump told directly about the quid pro quo.
Trump’s defense team has argued his behavior doesn’t rise to the level of an impeachable offense, even with Bolton’s account. Lawyers have also suggested that if his account was really that crucial, Democrats should have worked harder to secure witnesses for House testimony.
The managers have explained that Bolton was not deposed during the House inquiry because the president directed administration officials not to testify. They also said they refrained from issuing Bolton a subpoena because of the extensive legal battle that would ensue. (A similar fight over a House subpoena issued to former White House counsel Don McGahn, for example, has been ongoing for months.)
It is worth noting that questions remain about how calling witnesses would work. If Democrats wanted to call Bolton, for example, Republicans have suggested they’d be interested in a one-for-one trade for someone they are interested in, like Hunter Biden. Democrats, however, have chafed at that suggestion, since they don’t see Hunter Biden as having any direct knowledge about Trump’s wrongdoing — the focal point of this trial.
And because of the uncertainty about the actual terms of witness testimony, both sides have been able to offer conflicting visions of what that process would look like.
Take Trump counsel Patrick Philbin’s scenario: “It’s not a question of one witness. The president would have an opportunity to call his witnesses. If the body were to go in that direction, this would have to drag on for months and prevent it from getting its business done.”
But impeachment manager Hakeem Jeffries on Wednesday emphasized that Congress would be able to address witness testimony in an “expeditious fashion,” citing the House’s own inquiry when up to five witnesses were deposed in a week. Jeffries noted, too, that Chief Justice John Roberts could help settle any debate over whether executive privilege could be applied to bar Bolton from speaking, preventing extensive legal battles from playing out.
House managers are making their arguments at a pivotal time. This Friday, the Senate will vote on whether it’s interested in calling more witnesses for the trial or if it’s content to move to a quick acquittal. As of Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had said he didn’t yet have the votes to block witness testimony altogether.
Managers, in their remarks on Wednesday, attempted to appeal to the handful of lawmakers who had yet to make up their minds. “In every single [impeachment] trial, there were witnesses. Why should the president be treated differently?” Jeffries said.


vox--2020-01-29--Why Republicans are suddenly in a rush to regulate every trans kid’s puberty

Greyson was already menstruating when he started taking puberty blockers at age 12 , so when he stopped getting his period because of the drug , he was “ over-the-moon happy.
” His mother , Lauren Rodriguez , worried about the risks she read about online , specifically loss of bone density .
However , after further reading , she learned that the side effect pops up only after long-term use , or about seven to 10 years — and most trans kids take blockers for just a year or two .
In the year and a half Greyson was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effect he faced was hot flashes .
Before his transition , Greyson was on antidepressants just to deal with his dysphoria , Rodriguez said .
“ If I had known what was making my ‘ daughter ’ at the time so unhappy , I would have done it at 3 , which is just a social transition , ” she said , referring to respecting transgender kids ’ chosen names , pronouns , and style of dress , without any medical interventions before puberty .
Deciding whether to allow a trans adolescent to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most parents don ’ t take lightly .
They often talk to doctors and psychologists , and the general guidelines of most major American medical associations recommend affirming a child ’ s gender exploration in order to improve their mental health .
Transitioning is a slow , deliberative process for minors , and only adolescents who are insistent , persistent , and consistent in their gender identity over long periods are recommended for medical intervention .
However , some conservative politicians want to take that decision out of the hands of doctors and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and put it in the hands of the state .
In fact , in Greyson ’ s home state of Texas , lawmakers have promised to introduce legislation that would essentially ban , midway , his medical transitioning once their next legislative session begins in 2021 .
Eight state legislatures — including Missouri , Florida , Illinois , Oklahoma , Colorado , South Carolina , Kentucky , and South Dakota — have already introduced bills this year that would criminally punish doctors who follow best practices for treating adolescents with gender dysphoria .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ doctors who prescribe puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones could face a $ 2,000 fine and a year in prison under the proposed law .
South Dakota ’ s version of the bill was even prioritized and became the first bill of the decade to pass out of committee .
On Wednesday , it passed the House in a 46-23 vote .
Lawmakers in Texas , Utah , and Georgia have promised to introduce similar bills once their legislative sessions begin .
And while a New Hampshire bill wouldn ’ t criminalize doctors , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as child abuse .
In other words , should any of the bills become law , they would effectively cut off many adolescents from medically necessary and , often , lifesaving treatment for gender dysphoria .
There are approximately 150,000 transgender youth between the ages of 13 and 17 in the United States , according to the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law , and studies show that kids in Gen Z identify as more queer and trans than previous generations .
A 2018 study found that the risk of developing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 13 times higher for transgender and gender-diverse youth than for their cisgender peers .
“ The crisis that trans youth are facing right now is not a hypothetical , ” said Gillian Branstetter , a spokesperson for the National Women ’ s Law Center .
“ It is real and it is well-documented and it is extremely severe .
Efforts to limit the very solutions to that crisis are ignorant in the extreme and are a dangerous manifestation of rank partisanship and political opportunism.
” Bills banning trans care for kids are the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ larger culture war against trans people .
Conservative media and politicians have been fanning the flames for this fight for years in hopes of rallying the base over a nonexistent threat — a threat that only puts trans lives , like Greyson ’ s , in danger .
What spurred the latest trend in anti-trans laws The recent conservative push for an outright ban on transition care for minors grew directly from the social media disinformation campaign surrounding Luna Younger , a 7-year-old trans girl from Dallas caught in the middle of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disagree over her gender identity .
A Texas judge overruled a jury decision to award full custody of Luna to her mother , Anne Georgulas , in late September .
That means Luna ’ s father , Jeffrey Younger , who insists on dressing his child as a boy and forced her to cut her hair , has an equal say in future medical decisions for Luna .
Driving the conversation about the case were primarily conservative media outlets .
In the week following the initial jury decision , 23 conservative news sites @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all opposed the child ’ s transition .
According to data from Media Matters , those 55 stories earned 3.5 million Facebook interactions .
People were so riled up online that some sent threats to Georgulas ; she was “ viciously attacked and threatened by complete strangers , ” her attorneys told the Daily Caller .
Several prominent Texas officials even added to the fray : Republican Gov .
Greg Abbott promised to order the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services to investigate Georgulas .
State Rep. Steve Toth said he would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a minor ’ as child abuse.
” A version of the bill is expected on the Texas docket when the legislature reconvenes next year .
It didn ’ t take but a few months for this groundswell of conservative opposition to spur the introduction of legislation seeking to ban the medical transitioning of minors altogether .
While South Dakota ’ s bill would threaten doctors with prison time , states like Missouri are taking a different tack .
That state ’ s bill would automatically report any parent who affirms their child @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Child Protective Services for child abuse , and any doctors found to be dispensing blockers or hormones to minors would have their medical licenses revoked .
Kentucky ’ s bill , which was introduced on Tuesday , goes well beyond those of Missouri and South Dakota : It would allow either parent to override consent for transition care , a right which the state can not overrule ; it would require all government agents to disclose to parents whether a child expresses gender dysphoria or gender-variant behavior ; and it would protect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including teachers , to express their views on gender identity , including misgendering or harassing transgender students .
Additionally , any adult ( or minor with parent or guardian permission ) who had previously been given transition care would be allowed to sue doctors for damages for the next 20 years .
Because the bills don ’ t stop at banning puberty blockers , a second South Dakota bill introduced Tuesday would require any teacher , school psychologist , or social worker to out any students they suspect may be suffering from gender @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And let ’ s not forget the bills targeting trans school sports participation .
The anti-trans fight has moved from bathroom access to legislating over children ’ s bodies .
With so many bills in process , LGBTQ advocates worry that the passage of one could trigger passage of the rest , casting the progress of trans children back at least half a century .
There is an abundance of misinformation on how trans children are medically treated in adolescence Confusion and misinformation are rampant in the debate over treating transgender adolescents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doctors are performing genital surgeries on children , a more nuanced conversation is actually taking place between young teens , doctors , and parents .
“ Children often have a clear sense of their gender identity as young as three or four years old .
However , no medical intervention occurs for younger children , and the best practice is to provide psychological and social affirmation until very early puberty , ” Dr. Alex Keuroghlian , director of the National LGBT Health Education Center at the Fenway Institute and director of the Massachusetts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told Vox .
“ Once a child reaches the cusp of puberty , whether they desire and access pubertal suppression or not , psychosocial gender affirmation by family and peers through adolescence and adulthood remains critical for good mental health outcomes.
” Once adolescents reach ages 9 to 14 , puberty blockers can be a tool to prevent permanent changes from natal puberty from taking place so that can become more mentally mature before deciding the course of their permanent treatment .
“ Blockers put puberty on hold so that adolescents have more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Without them , the adolescent will have physical changes that are difficult if not impossible to reverse .
Often , it requires surgery to undo these changes down the line , ” Dr. Jack Turban , resident physician in psychiatry at the Massachusetts General Hospital , where he researches the mental health of transgender youth , told Vox .
However , ultraconservatives and trans-exclusionary radical feminists , along with some extreme sexologists , have other ideas for those children ’ s futures , lobbying to ban puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are new , the ideology behind them is old .
Bill proponents appeal to the fallacy that natal puberty is natural and therefore necessary for all kids .
But this approach would force trans girls into male puberty and trans boys into female puberty without their consent , and brings along its own permanent changes , which could partially be reversed only with painful and expensive medical treatments in adulthood .
Trans women forced through male puberty would have to undergo electrolysis to remove facial hair and may be left with a body @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that would be unchangeable surgically .
Trans men would have to have surgery to remove their breasts and , like trans women , be forced to live in an unwanted body frame for their entire lives .
Those permanent changes were discussed between Rodriguez , her son , and her son ’ s doctor before he started testosterone , the hormone taken by transmasculine people as part of their medical transition .
“ ‘ If we start this , the changes are permanent , ’ ” Rodriguez recalled the doctor saying .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you have a beard .
Once you have a mustache , mustache .
Once your voice drops , your voice drops .
There ’ s no going back to it.
’ And everything he said , Grey was like , ‘ Yes , let ’ s do it.
’ ” So many conservative arguments against trans rights deploy the specter of “ big , scary ” trans women ’ s bodies in female spaces — which was the crux of the bathroom bills and the latest push against trans athletes .
Trans girls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and eventual cross-sex hormones end up with normal female body and bone development , making their bodies much less easily marked for social exclusion and poking a hole in conservative scaremongering against trans rights .
With their legislation , conservative lawmakers are removing parents ’ and kids ’ choices altogether , forcing their own political ideology on the medical choices of private citizens .
The South Dakota bill has even received out-of-state help .
It ’ s being pushed by a small coalition of conservative special interest groups , with activists and doctors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ California testifying mostly via video .
The bill ’ s original sponsor , Rep. Fred Deutsch , also attended an anti-trans conference hosted by the conservative Heritage Foundation titled “ Summit on Protecting Children From Sexualization ” in October , according to the Washington Post .
( When Vox contact the Heritage Foundation about its involvement in the legislation , the foundation sent a link to an article co-written by a Heritage research fellow in defense of prohibiting the “ physical interventions on the bodies of children to ‘ affirm ’ their ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ returned Vox ’ s request for comment . )
Meanwhile , local South Dakota doctors and medical experts have been testifying against the bill .
Public health researcher Michaela Seiber pointed out that much of the research Deutsch presented actually supports affirming care for gender-diverse youth .
“ I was curious about what studies he was actually using to support all of this stuff , but when I started diving into them , they were actually from publications that I think he should have realized were very anti what he ’ s trying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
According to Seiber , Deutsch cherry-picked rare potential side effects of puberty blockers from safety studies and presented them as if every youth who goes on blockers will experience them .
“ He made mistakes that undergrads might not even do anymore , just picking out little pieces out of context and using as his support.
” These laws could mean a matter of life or death for trans kids The political fight has worried young trans people across the country who depend on their medication to keep their gender dysphoria at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trevor Project , 76 percent of LGBTQ youth felt that the recent political climate impacted their mental health or sense of self .
Over the past year , the Trevor Project has supported more than 150 LGBTQ youth in crisis in South Dakota .
“ They ’ re using transgender youth as political pawns to advance a particular agenda , ” said Alexis Chavez , medical director at the Trevor Project , referring to conservative politicians .
“ They ’ re advancing it under the guise that they ’ re doing what ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ re not basing it on any evidence .
They ’ re not basing it on clinical best practices .
They ’ re not using providers who are working day to day with these youth to make these laws .
It ’ s really unfortunate because they ’ re targeting some of the most vulnerable population.
” Compiled by the Trevor Project in a research brief , study after study has shown that affirming trans and gender-diverse kids in their self-exploration improves mental health and lowers suicide risk .
The affirming model @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gender identities at their own pace and can include puberty blockers , has been recommended by nearly every major American medical association , including the American Academy of Pediatrics , the American Medical Association , the American Psychological Association , the Endocrine Society , the World Professional Association for Transgender Health , and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists .
“ What is most important is for a parent to listen , respect , and support their child ’ s self-expressed identity .
This encourages open conversations that may be difficult but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s mental health and the family ’ s resilience and well-being , ” wrote Jason Rafferty , a pediatrician and child psychiatrist at Hasbro Children ’ s Hospital in Providence , Rhode Island , and a professor at Brown University , in a key American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement in 2018 .
The effects of supporting a trans child can also be lifesaving .
Late last week , new analysis from a group of researchers who specialize in studying trans youth found that access to puberty blockers significantly lowers lifetime suicidality @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the biggest concern for mothers like Rodriguez .
“ He ’ d kill himself , ” she replied when asked how her son would react if the state took his hormones away .
“ He ’ s already flat-out said that.
” Conservatives in Texas have prioritized anti-trans legislation in each of the last three sessions , including trying and failing to pass a statewide bathroom bill in 2018 .
Should the legislature enact a ban on hormone blockers and other medical treatment for gender dysphoria , Rodriguez says she ’ d have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ move out of state .
“ I will have to sell my house ; I will have to quit the job at the nonprofit that I love , ” she said .
“ But we ’ re going to have to go to a more affirming state .
I can ’ t expect my child to thrive and continue to live if [ they ] pass this.
” While some families with trans kids may be able to afford to leave the state , others may be forced to find medical solutions across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have no choice but to abruptly stop their medical transitions entirely .
According to Branstetter , conservatives pushing these bans need to be prepared for the worst possible outcome .
“ Is Rep. Deutsch ready to host in his office the first family that is forced to bury their 12-year-old because he wanted to be a hero in right-wing media ?
” The state now threatens to insert itself into the most basic decisions of body and identity , all to drive a handful of votes from the conservative base to win in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conservative rush to tamp down the trans rights movement are the very real lives of trans kids who simply want to transition and move on to adulthood .

Greyson was already menstruating when he started taking puberty blockers at age 12, so when he stopped getting his period because of the drug, he was “over-the-moon happy.” His mother, Lauren Rodriguez, worried about the risks she read about online, specifically loss of bone density. However, after further reading, she learned that the side effect pops up only after long-term use, or about seven to 10 years — and most trans kids take blockers for just a year or two. In the year and a half Greyson was on them, the most difficult side effect he faced was hot flashes.
Before his transition, Greyson was on antidepressants just to deal with his dysphoria, Rodriguez said. “If I had known what was making my ‘daughter’ at the time so unhappy, I would have done it at 3, which is just a social transition,” she said, referring to respecting transgender kids’ chosen names, pronouns, and style of dress, without any medical interventions before puberty.
Deciding whether to allow a trans adolescent to go on puberty blockers is a decision most parents don’t take lightly. They often talk to doctors and psychologists, and the general guidelines of most major American medical associations recommend affirming a child’s gender exploration in order to improve their mental health. Transitioning is a slow, deliberative process for minors, and only adolescents who are insistent, persistent, and consistent in their gender identity over long periods are recommended for medical intervention.
However, some conservative politicians want to take that decision out of the hands of doctors and parents who know these teens best — and put it in the hands of the state. In fact, in Greyson’s home state of Texas, lawmakers have promised to introduce legislation that would essentially ban, midway, his medical transitioning once their next legislative session begins in 2021.
Eight state legislatures — including Missouri, Florida, Illinois, Oklahoma, Colorado, South Carolina, Kentucky, and South Dakota — have already introduced bills this year that would criminally punish doctors who follow best practices for treating adolescents with gender dysphoria. In South Dakota, for example, doctors who prescribe puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones could face a $2,000 fine and a year in prison under the proposed law. South Dakota’s version of the bill was even prioritized and became the first bill of the decade to pass out of committee. On Wednesday, it passed the House in a 46-23 vote.
Lawmakers in Texas, Utah, and Georgia have promised to introduce similar bills once their legislative sessions begin. And while a New Hampshire bill wouldn’t criminalize doctors, it would classify gender-affirming care for minors as child abuse.
In other words, should any of the bills become law, they would effectively cut off many adolescents from medically necessary and, often, lifesaving treatment for gender dysphoria. There are approximately 150,000 transgender youth between the ages of 13 and 17 in the United States, according to the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, and studies show that kids in Gen Z identify as more queer and trans than previous generations. A 2018 study found that the risk of developing a mental health condition was three to 13 times higher for transgender and gender-diverse youth than for their cisgender peers.
“The crisis that trans youth are facing right now is not a hypothetical,” said Gillian Branstetter, a spokesperson for the National Women’s Law Center. “It is real and it is well-documented and it is extremely severe. Efforts to limit the very solutions to that crisis are ignorant in the extreme and are a dangerous manifestation of rank partisanship and political opportunism.”
Bills banning trans care for kids are the new bathroom bills, part of conservatives’ larger culture war against trans people. Conservative media and politicians have been fanning the flames for this fight for years in hopes of rallying the base over a nonexistent threat — a threat that only puts trans lives, like Greyson’s, in danger.
What spurred the latest trend in anti-trans laws
The recent conservative push for an outright ban on transition care for minors grew directly from the social media disinformation campaign surrounding Luna Younger, a 7-year-old trans girl from Dallas caught in the middle of a bitter custody battle between parents who disagree over her gender identity. A Texas judge overruled a jury decision to award full custody of Luna to her mother, Anne Georgulas, in late September. That means Luna’s father, Jeffrey Younger, who insists on dressing his child as a boy and forced her to cut her hair, has an equal say in future medical decisions for Luna.
Driving the conversation about the case were primarily conservative media outlets. In the week following the initial jury decision, 23 conservative news sites published 55 stories about Younger, and all opposed the child’s transition. According to data from Media Matters, those 55 stories earned 3.5 million Facebook interactions.
People were so riled up online that some sent threats to Georgulas; she was “viciously attacked and threatened by complete strangers,” her attorneys told the Daily Caller. Several prominent Texas officials even added to the fray: Republican Gov. Greg Abbott promised to order the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services to investigate Georgulas. State Rep. Steve Toth said he would propose legislation to “add ‘transitioning of a minor’ as child abuse.” A version of the bill is expected on the Texas docket when the legislature reconvenes next year.
It didn’t take but a few months for this groundswell of conservative opposition to spur the introduction of legislation seeking to ban the medical transitioning of minors altogether.
While South Dakota’s bill would threaten doctors with prison time, states like Missouri are taking a different tack. That state’s bill would automatically report any parent who affirms their child’s trans identity with medical care to Child Protective Services for child abuse, and any doctors found to be dispensing blockers or hormones to minors would have their medical licenses revoked.
Kentucky’s bill, which was introduced on Tuesday, goes well beyond those of Missouri and South Dakota: It would allow either parent to override consent for transition care, a right which the state cannot overrule; it would require all government agents to disclose to parents whether a child expresses gender dysphoria or gender-variant behavior; and it would protect the right of any government employee, including teachers, to express their views on gender identity, including misgendering or harassing transgender students. Additionally, any adult (or minor with parent or guardian permission) who had previously been given transition care would be allowed to sue doctors for damages for the next 20 years.
Because the bills don’t stop at banning puberty blockers, a second South Dakota bill introduced Tuesday would require any teacher, school psychologist, or social worker to out any students they suspect may be suffering from gender dysphoria to the student’s parents. And let’s not forget the bills targeting trans school sports participation.
The anti-trans fight has moved from bathroom access to legislating over children’s bodies. With so many bills in process, LGBTQ advocates worry that the passage of one could trigger passage of the rest, casting the progress of trans children back at least half a century.
There is an abundance of misinformation on how trans children are medically treated in adolescence
Confusion and misinformation are rampant in the debate over treating transgender adolescents. While many conservatives falsely claim that doctors are performing genital surgeries on children, a more nuanced conversation is actually taking place between young teens, doctors, and parents.
“Children often have a clear sense of their gender identity as young as three or four years old. However, no medical intervention occurs for younger children, and the best practice is to provide psychological and social affirmation until very early puberty,” Dr. Alex Keuroghlian, director of the National LGBT Health Education Center at the Fenway Institute and director of the Massachusetts General Hospital Psychiatry Gender Identity Program, told Vox. “Once a child reaches the cusp of puberty, whether they desire and access pubertal suppression or not, psychosocial gender affirmation by family and peers through adolescence and adulthood remains critical for good mental health outcomes.”
Once adolescents reach ages 9 to 14, puberty blockers can be a tool to prevent permanent changes from natal puberty from taking place so that can become more mentally mature before deciding the course of their permanent treatment.
“Blockers put puberty on hold so that adolescents have more time to decide what to do next. Without them, the adolescent will have physical changes that are difficult if not impossible to reverse. Often, it requires surgery to undo these changes down the line,” Dr. Jack Turban, resident physician in psychiatry at the Massachusetts General Hospital, where he researches the mental health of transgender youth, told Vox.
However, ultraconservatives and trans-exclusionary radical feminists, along with some extreme sexologists, have other ideas for those children’s futures, lobbying to ban puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones for all minors. While the proposed bills are new, the ideology behind them is old. Bill proponents appeal to the fallacy that natal puberty is natural and therefore necessary for all kids.
But this approach would force trans girls into male puberty and trans boys into female puberty without their consent, and brings along its own permanent changes, which could partially be reversed only with painful and expensive medical treatments in adulthood. Trans women forced through male puberty would have to undergo electrolysis to remove facial hair and may be left with a body frame (shoulder and hip width) that would be unchangeable surgically. Trans men would have to have surgery to remove their breasts and, like trans women, be forced to live in an unwanted body frame for their entire lives.
Those permanent changes were discussed between Rodriguez, her son, and her son’s doctor before he started testosterone, the hormone taken by transmasculine people as part of their medical transition. “‘If we start this, the changes are permanent,’” Rodriguez recalled the doctor saying. “‘Once you have a beard, you have a beard. Once you have a mustache, mustache. Once your voice drops, your voice drops. There’s no going back to it.’ And everything he said, Grey was like, ‘Yes, let’s do it.’”
So many conservative arguments against trans rights deploy the specter of “big, scary” trans women’s bodies in female spaces — which was the crux of the bathroom bills and the latest push against trans athletes. Trans girls who receive early support through puberty blockers and eventual cross-sex hormones end up with normal female body and bone development, making their bodies much less easily marked for social exclusion and poking a hole in conservative scaremongering against trans rights.
With their legislation, conservative lawmakers are removing parents’ and kids’ choices altogether, forcing their own political ideology on the medical choices of private citizens.
The South Dakota bill has even received out-of-state help. It’s being pushed by a small coalition of conservative special interest groups, with activists and doctors from as far away as Seattle and California testifying mostly via video. The bill’s original sponsor, Rep. Fred Deutsch, also attended an anti-trans conference hosted by the conservative Heritage Foundation titled “Summit on Protecting Children From Sexualization” in October, according to the Washington Post. (When Vox contact the Heritage Foundation about its involvement in the legislation, the foundation sent a link to an article co-written by a Heritage research fellow in defense of prohibiting the “physical interventions on the bodies of children to ‘affirm’ their ‘gender identity.’” Deutsch has not returned Vox’s request for comment.)
Meanwhile, local South Dakota doctors and medical experts have been testifying against the bill. Public health researcher Michaela Seiber pointed out that much of the research Deutsch presented actually supports affirming care for gender-diverse youth.
“I was curious about what studies he was actually using to support all of this stuff, but when I started diving into them, they were actually from publications that I think he should have realized were very anti what he’s trying to promote,” Seiber told Vox.
According to Seiber, Deutsch cherry-picked rare potential side effects of puberty blockers from safety studies and presented them as if every youth who goes on blockers will experience them. “He made mistakes that undergrads might not even do anymore, just picking out little pieces out of context and using as his support.”
These laws could mean a matter of life or death for trans kids
The political fight has worried young trans people across the country who depend on their medication to keep their gender dysphoria at bay. According to data from the Trevor Project, 76 percent of LGBTQ youth felt that the recent political climate impacted their mental health or sense of self. Over the past year, the Trevor Project has supported more than 150 LGBTQ youth in crisis in South Dakota.
“They’re using transgender youth as political pawns to advance a particular agenda,” said Alexis Chavez, medical director at the Trevor Project, referring to conservative politicians. “They’re advancing it under the guise that they’re doing what’s best for the youth, but they’re not basing it on any evidence. They’re not basing it on clinical best practices. They’re not using providers who are working day to day with these youth to make these laws. It’s really unfortunate because they’re targeting some of the most vulnerable population.”
Compiled by the Trevor Project in a research brief, study after study has shown that affirming trans and gender-diverse kids in their self-exploration improves mental health and lowers suicide risk. The affirming model, which allows children to explore their gender identities at their own pace and can include puberty blockers, has been recommended by nearly every major American medical association, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the Endocrine Society, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
“What is most important is for a parent to listen, respect, and support their child’s self-expressed identity. This encourages open conversations that may be difficult but [are] key to the child’s mental health and the family’s resilience and well-being,” wrote Jason Rafferty, a pediatrician and child psychiatrist at Hasbro Children’s Hospital in Providence, Rhode Island, and a professor at Brown University, in a key American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement in 2018.
The effects of supporting a trans child can also be lifesaving. Late last week, new analysis from a group of researchers who specialize in studying trans youth found that access to puberty blockers significantly lowers lifetime suicidality in trans people.
That’s the biggest concern for mothers like Rodriguez. “He’d kill himself,” she replied when asked how her son would react if the state took his hormones away. “He’s already flat-out said that.”
Conservatives in Texas have prioritized anti-trans legislation in each of the last three sessions, including trying and failing to pass a statewide bathroom bill in 2018. Should the legislature enact a ban on hormone blockers and other medical treatment for gender dysphoria, Rodriguez says she’d have no choice but to pick up and move out of state.
“I will have to sell my house; I will have to quit the job at the nonprofit that I love,” she said. “But we’re going to have to go to a more affirming state. I can’t expect my child to thrive and continue to live if [they] pass this.”
While some families with trans kids may be able to afford to leave the state, others may be forced to find medical solutions across state lines, and still others will have no choice but to abruptly stop their medical transitions entirely.
According to Branstetter, conservatives pushing these bans need to be prepared for the worst possible outcome. “Is Rep. Deutsch ready to host in his office the first family that is forced to bury their 12-year-old because he wanted to be a hero in right-wing media?”
The state now threatens to insert itself into the most basic decisions of body and identity, all to drive a handful of votes from the conservative base to win in an election year. Lost in the conservative rush to tamp down the trans rights movement are the very real lives of trans kids who simply want to transition and move on to adulthood.


vox--2020-01-29--American Dirt’s publisher cancels the rest of the book’s tour, citing threats

The saga of American Dirt , the controversial new novel about Mexican migration by Jeanine Cummins , has a new wrinkle .
Publisher Flatiron Books announced Wednesday that it would be canceling the remainder of Cummins ’ s planned book tour , citing “ specific ” threats of “ physical violence , ” according to the New York Times ’ s book publishing reporter Alexandra Alter .
Meanwhile , critics of the novel say that they , too , have received threats .
American Dirt was a heavily promoted and buzzy book before its publication on January 21 .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Sandra Cisneros , and Oprah chose it for her book club .
But multiple critics have argued that Cummins , who is not of Mexican heritage , traffics in harmful stereotypes about Mexicans , and that her book does not deserve the level of institutional support from publishing that it has received .
Now , in the face of overwhelming controversy , some of those supporters are walking back their platitudes .
On Tuesday , Oprah declared her intention to change her planned coverage of the book into a series of conversations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cummins ’ s upcoming 40-city book tour .
So far , Cummins has made only five stops on her planned tour .
In a statement Alter first reported on Twitter , Flatiron publisher Bob Miller said that the tour would be canceled because of “ specific threats to booksellers and the author ” which in some cases included “ threats of physical violence.
” Miller added that “ we believe there exists real peril to their safety.
” Instead , Flatiron plans to send Cummins out in a series of town hall events @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have raised objections to the book , ” Miller says , adding , “ We believe that this provides an opportunity to come together and unearth difficult truths to help us move forward as a community.
” His statement added an apology for the early publicity of American Dirt , which made much of the fact that Cummins ’ s husband used to be undocumented without noting that he was from Ireland ; the PR also included a book party featuring barbed-wire-themed decorations .
“ We can now see how insensitive those and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them , ” Miller said .
“ The gesture is cowardly , ” said the writer Myriam Gurba of Miller ’ s plans in a statement to Vox .
Gurba wrote one of the first critical reviews of American Dirt , and she is one of the organizers behind the literary political protest group # DignidadLiteraria , which arose in response to the American Dirt controversy .
“ Latinx people are under threat in this country , ” Gurba says , “ and they are attempting to reframe the issue [ as one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a threat.
” Latinos are at significant risk of violence in the US , with the FBI reporting that hate crimes against them rose to a 16-year high in 2019 .
Gurba says that she has received death threats in response to her review of American Dirt .
She shared one with Vox , in which the sender instructed her to “ please confront the police in person ” so that “ one of them will relieve you of the burden of a life spent in feckless fury , ” before concluding , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” # DignidadLiteraria has repeatedly issued statements saying that it was not involved in any threats Cummins , her publishers , or booksellers might have received .
“ We support free speech and welcome discussing & debating why we find the book ’ s content & racially tainted promotion so repugnant , ” said organizer Roberto Lovato in a tweet .
Instead , the group has been pushing for Oprah to remove her book club ’ s seal of approval from American Dirt .
It published an open letter to Oprah on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ signatures from 82 writers , including major names like Alexander Chee , Carmen Maria Machado , Rebecca Solnit , and R.O .
Kwon .
“ This is not a letter calling for silencing , nor censoring , ” the letter reads .
“ But in a time of widespread misinformation , fear-mongering , and white-supremacist propaganda related to immigration and to our border , in a time when adults and children are dying in US immigration cages , we believe that a novel blundering so badly in its depiction of marginalized , oppressed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We are asking only that you remove the influential imprimatur of Oprah ’ s Book Club.
” In the meantime , all of the controversy around American Dirt seems to have been good business for Flatiron Books .
Official sales data for the book does not yet exist , but the industry publication Publishers Lunch projected on Tuesday that American Dirt would sell around 40,000 print units and 21,000 ebooks in its first week of publication .
The publication is expecting the book to debut at No .
1 on the New York @ @ @ @ @

The saga of American Dirt, the controversial new novel about Mexican migration by Jeanine Cummins, has a new wrinkle. Publisher Flatiron Books announced Wednesday that it would be canceling the remainder of Cummins’s planned book tour, citing “specific” threats of “physical violence,” according to the New York Times’s book publishing reporter Alexandra Alter. Meanwhile, critics of the novel say that they, too, have received threats.
American Dirt was a heavily promoted and buzzy book before its publication on January 21. It won plaudits from luminaries like Stephen King and Sandra Cisneros, and Oprah chose it for her book club. But multiple critics have argued that Cummins, who is not of Mexican heritage, traffics in harmful stereotypes about Mexicans, and that her book does not deserve the level of institutional support from publishing that it has received.
Now, in the face of overwhelming controversy, some of those supporters are walking back their platitudes. On Tuesday, Oprah declared her intention to change her planned coverage of the book into a series of conversations. And now, Flatiron is modifying Cummins’s upcoming 40-city book tour.
So far, Cummins has made only five stops on her planned tour. In a statement Alter first reported on Twitter, Flatiron publisher Bob Miller said that the tour would be canceled because of “specific threats to booksellers and the author” which in some cases included “threats of physical violence.” Miller added that “we believe there exists real peril to their safety.”
Instead, Flatiron plans to send Cummins out in a series of town hall events with “some of the groups who have raised objections to the book,” Miller says, adding, “We believe that this provides an opportunity to come together and unearth difficult truths to help us move forward as a community.”
His statement added an apology for the early publicity of American Dirt, which made much of the fact that Cummins’s husband used to be undocumented without noting that he was from Ireland; the PR also included a book party featuring barbed-wire-themed decorations. “We can now see how insensitive those and other decisions were, and we regret them,” Miller said.
“The gesture is cowardly,” said the writer Myriam Gurba of Miller’s plans in a statement to Vox. Gurba wrote one of the first critical reviews of American Dirt, and she is one of the organizers behind the literary political protest group #DignidadLiteraria, which arose in response to the American Dirt controversy. “Latinx people are under threat in this country,” Gurba says, “and they are attempting to reframe the issue [as one] that falsely implicates Latinx people as a threat.”
Latinos are at significant risk of violence in the US, with the FBI reporting that hate crimes against them rose to a 16-year high in 2019. Gurba says that she has received death threats in response to her review of American Dirt. She shared one with Vox, in which the sender instructed her to “please confront the police in person” so that “one of them will relieve you of the burden of a life spent in feckless fury,” before concluding, “alternatively, make me a taco.”
#DignidadLiteraria has repeatedly issued statements saying that it was not involved in any threats Cummins, her publishers, or booksellers might have received. “We support free speech and welcome discussing & debating why we find the book’s content & racially tainted promotion so repugnant,” said organizer Roberto Lovato in a tweet.
Instead, the group has been pushing for conversation. And others who object to the book’s content have been pushing for Oprah to remove her book club’s seal of approval from American Dirt. Many of them published an open letter to Oprah on the book-centric website LitHub this morning, with signatures from 82 writers, including major names like Alexander Chee, Carmen Maria Machado, Rebecca Solnit, and R.O. Kwon.
“This is not a letter calling for silencing, nor censoring,” the letter reads. “But in a time of widespread misinformation, fear-mongering, and white-supremacist propaganda related to immigration and to our border, in a time when adults and children are dying in US immigration cages, we believe that a novel blundering so badly in its depiction of marginalized, oppressed people should not be lifted up. We are asking only that you remove the influential imprimatur of Oprah’s Book Club.”
In the meantime, all of the controversy around American Dirt seems to have been good business for Flatiron Books. Official sales data for the book does not yet exist, but the industry publication Publishers Lunch projected on Tuesday that American Dirt would sell around 40,000 print units and 21,000 ebooks in its first week of publication. The publication is expecting the book to debut at No. 1 on the New York Times fiction bestseller list.
Correction: An earlier version of this article identified a letter to Oprah as an initiative of #DignidadLiteraria. The letter was composed separately. We regret the error.