vox--2020-01-10--Romance is publishing’s most lucrative genre. Its biggest community of writers is imploding.

The romance writing community ’ s biggest professional organization is in shambles due to an institutional meltdown over racialized politics .
It ’ s a giant imbroglio involving questions of how to bring progressive change to a 40-year-old organization whose membership is increasingly diversifying — and the ramifications are about much more than romance .
Formed in 1980 by the groundbreaking black romance editor Vivian Stephens , Romance Writers of America ( RWA ) is a trade organization that essentially functions as a union for its 9,000 members , most of whom are published or aspiring romance authors .
Its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , are the most prestigious honor in the romance writing community , and past winners have included bestselling romance titans like Nora Roberts , Diana Gabaldon , and Julia Quinn .
But on January 6 , the RWA announced it would cancel the 2020 RITA ceremony , previously scheduled for July as part of the annual national RWA conference , after many nominees withdrew their work from consideration and many judges said they would no longer participate .
Then on January 8 , major romance novel publishers like Harlequin and Avon began to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , putting the event in jeopardy as well .
And on January 9 , both the new RWA president , Damon Suede ( who ’ d only officially held the role for about two weeks ) , and the organization ’ s executive director , Carol Ritter , resigned .
( Contacted by Vox for comment , the RWA referred to its official announcement of Suede ’ s departure and clarified that Ritter , who is staying on for several months to assist with the organization ’ s transition , will not have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) These developments are the latest in an ongoing spiral into institutional chaos and backlash that began just before Christmas , when the board of RWA suspended one of the organization ’ s most popular members , Courtney Milan , for publicly critiquing perceived racism and racist writing by other members .
The board ’ s decision initially caused outrage — and eventually betrayed a massive institutional failure , as emerging details revealed to shocked RWA members that Milan ’ s suspension was built on a lie and mired in mysterious backchanneling — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a concerted attempt to oust Milan , who some members may have perceived as a progressive rabble-rouser , from a position of influence within RWA .
That in itself might not have been enough to seriously threaten the institution ’ s survival — but Milan is a beloved author of color , fighting against systemic racism in an organization with a long , fraught history of sidelining or overtly offending marginalized authors .
Now , many of its members are giving up the fight , and RWA ’ s pledges to change may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In a December board meeting , the RWA board voted to suspend and permanently ban from leadership one of its most famous members , Courtney Milan .
Milan is known for historical novels containing progressive social elements like interracial relationships and proto-feminist heroines .
She served on the RWA board from 2014 to 2018 , and won an RWA service award in 2019 for her leadership promoting diversity within the organization .
Milan was serving as the chair of RWA ’ s ethics committee in August 2019 when she participated in a widespread @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same small publishing house , Glenfinnan .
The conversation started when Carolyn Jewel — who was then the president-elect of the RWA — blocked one of the editors , Sue Grimshaw , on Twitter after she noticed Grimshaw had “ Liked ” a series of tweets Jewel perceived to be racist , including a tweet questioning whether white supremacy was real .
From there , many people , including Milan , took part in a discussion about Grimshaw and her alleged history of gatekeeping books by authors of color .
Several participants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then also examined a book by another Glenfinnan editor , Kathryn Lynn Davis , and noted its use of racist stereotypes .
The book , Somewhere Lies the Moon , was published in 1999 and contained passages in which Chinese women are described as inherently “ demure and quiet ” and “ modest and submissive.
” As a result of these social media conversations , Glenfinnan ’ s publisher , Suzan Tisdale , along with Davis , filed complaints against Milan in August and September .
The complaints alleged that Milan ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of them to lose business opportunities .
RWA has never confirmed that it verified the truth of the allegations made in Davis and Tisdale ’ s claims , and acknowledged in a subsequent statement , released in December , that “ It is clear that there were failures in our current standard procedures , and the Code of Ethics and the processes surrounding it will be reviewed.
” Davis later stated that she had exaggerated many of the details in her complaint , including assertions she “ lost ” a three-book contract because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their books from Glenfinnan later disputed the assertions in Tisdale ’ s complaint as well .
Tisdale and Davis , who are both white , were upset that Milan , who is of Chinese descent , had used social media — and particularly Twitter , where she has more than 30,000 followers — to call out Grimshaw and Davis ’ s alleged racism .
Milan “ terrifies people into remaining quiet simply because of her reach on Twitter .
People are genuinely afraid of being ‘ on her list , ’ ” Tisdale @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggested that Milan chairing the RWA ethics committee was “ akin to putting a neo-Nazi in charge of a UN human rights committee ... Ms. Milan is not what the face of RWA needs to be.
” In her complaint , Davis asserted that Milan had unfairly trashed her book .
“ Milan ... quashes creativity and growth through the use of terror tactics , ” she wrote .
Davis also claimed her book is immune to racialized critique because it “ was written in the 1990s and is historically accurate , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to current judgments of racist literature.
” In response , Milan asserted her right to voice criticism .
And in a response to Davis specifically , she argued , “ Davis is explicitly asking RWA to create a world in which I , as a woman of color , must be explicitly barred from using my voice to criticize a novel with a protagonist who shares my race , because she believes that she should be ‘ immune ’ from criticism of the book.
” In essence , Milan was arguing , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s complaints was about whether RWA would support the rights of writers of color to publicly confront systemic and harmful racism where they see it — or whether the organization would support Tisdale and Davis in their efforts to avoid facing consequences , including financial harm , for actions and writing that had been perceived as racist .
But this question , as it turned out , was much bigger than it seemed .
The controversy over Milan ’ s social media posts is about a lot more than romance On one level @ @ @ @ @ @ @ filed with the RWA are about questions that are fundamental to storytelling , all of which revolve around a central theme : How do we tell stories about people from marginalized communities ?
Perhaps the author ’ s right to artistic freedom trumps everything , and it ’ s effectively censorship to tell someone they can ’ t write about whatever they want to write about .
Or perhaps it ’ s censorship to tell readers they can ’ t critique fiction they see as uncritically reinforcing harmful and racist tropes .
Perhaps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ itself is outdated and reliant on outdated historical research , even when it plays into harmful tropes — and even when the author argues , as Davis did , that the fiction is still historically accurate decades later .
And when social norms change , and stories that once looked inclusive to mainstream culture now look prejudiced or bigoted , how do we respond ?
Is it right to think about the author , who most likely wrote from a place of ignorance rather than malice , and didn ’ t realize that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harmful ?
Or is it right to think about the reader ?
After all , readers shouldn ’ t have to deal with problematic tropes , and the onus shouldn ’ t be on them to forgive and forget — especially not in the romance genre , which is supposed to bring its readers joy .
Versions of this debate have been working their way through various publishing communities for years , often flaring up in messy and public fights over specific incidents .
In the past five years alone , the science @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the problem of the “ Sad Puppies , ” an alt-right mob that tried to push progressive writers out of the Hugo Awards in 2015 and 2016 .
The literary fiction community spent 2016 debating whether it was acceptable for Lionel Shriver to wear a sombrero while she talked about why she thinks cultural appropriation is a myth .
And the YA community has been embroiled in a series of public scandals as various authors have canceled and then un-canceled their books when accused of racism .
Romance is publishing ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ RWA is that genre ’ s biggest professional organization , so the way it handles conflicts helps set the tone for the entire industry .
Moreover , romance is the genre through which we as a culture talk about love and relationships , which is to say it ’ s the genre through which we talk about how we want human beings to relate to one another .
So the way we talk through these questions in the romance community is vital .
“ Romancelandia , ” as the community is widely known @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But the events surrounding Milan ’ s suspension from RWA and RWA ’ s subsequent cancellation of the RITAs have combined these questions about the art of romance writing itself with even tougher questions about institutional gatekeeping and systemic discrimination .
In suspending Milan , RWA demonstrated how willing it is to use false shows of progressivism to protect an enshrined system of institutional racism .
And Milan ’ s suspension was just the beginning .
The plot thickens ... and thickens , and thickens The RWA board voted on the ethics panel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and RWA members found out about Milan ’ s suspension on December 23 , through a viral tweet thread by fellow author Alyssa Cole announcing the news .
Backlash was immediate : The news prompted mass membership cancellations , and the hashtag # IStandWithCourtney was a top Twitter trend on Christmas Eve .
RWA members who ’ d submitted their novels to the annual RITA Awards began to withdraw their entries .
Through all of this , members were slowly piecing together the process that resulted in Milan ’ s suspension .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a Cold War spy mission , not the goings-on of a professional organization for romance authors .
Members quickly realized that a ruling on Davis and Tisdale ’ s complaints had been delayed until after a board meeting in early October , when the rules governing the ethics committee had been strategically altered to give RWA ’ s then-president-elect , queer romance author Damon Suede , the power to personally appoint an anonymous panel to hear the complaints against Milan .
The entire existing ethics committee was then replaced , without the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new , secret panel formed just to hear Milan ’ s case .
The real ethics committee had no idea any of this was happening , or that complaints against Milan had even been filed .
Despite siding with Milan on three of the four points against her , the secret committee still confusingly recommended she be punished with a one-year suspension and a lifetime ban from holding any leadership positions in RWA , a response that thousands of RWA members believed was unwarranted and at the very least overly harsh and disproportionate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kelly , “ This was the kind of issue that , at most , would have possibly merited a warning letter.
” But that ’ s not even the wildest ( or most concerning ) part .
Ultimately , the only person who ever spoke to the secret second ethics committee directly was then-president-elect Suede , and because of all the secrecy , RWA members compared notes , soon realizing that Suede had a history of lying , according to Milan and many other RWA members , to steal credit for others ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scare and flatter them in turn .
He even allegedly lied about random details like knowing the true identity of pseudonymous author Chuck Tingle , all seemingly to amass political power within RWA and the romance writing community .
Suede also seems to have lied about the secret committee , offering a made-up reason , according to members of the real ethics committee , for why it needed to exist .
( Suede has not responded to Vox ’ s request for comment . )
The ensuing alarm from RWA ’ s membership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country issued statements of support for Milan ; more than 50 agents , and 18 former RWA presidents and board members , published open letters demanding an explanation .
Open letters signed by authors and reviewers drew more than 1,300 signatures of support .
Organizations that partnered with RWA began to cut ties , and several writing conferences rescinded invitations to feature Suede as a guest .
Prominent authors weighed in — and as awareness spread , public opinion was clearly on Milan ’ s side .
Among the authors who commented was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who recalled the similar shocking moment in the science fiction community that led to the ongoing cultural clash that ultimately led to Jemisin ’ s history-making Hugo-winning three-peat .
“ RWA can recover , too , ” she wrote .
“ It will take a bloodletting , but it ’ s possible.
” But at that point , the chaos inside the RWA was still expanding , with many additional details yet to emerge .
After holding an emergency meeting on December 24 , the day after news of Milan ’ s suspension @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its decision and reinstated Milan .
But more baffling revelations were still coming to light , many concerning organizational disenfranchisement .
These included a litany of allegations from members who said they ’ d filed complaints with RWA after experiencing bigotry and bias , only to be ignored , punished , or stonewalled in their efforts ; accounts of extensive gatekeeping , sometimes inexplicable but often insidious and discriminatory ; and reports of routine bigotry and microaggressions within various RWA chapters .
RWA members also raised concerns about Suede ’ s allegedly unethical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been failing to pay its authors for months , including many RWA authors .
Despite taking action against such publishers in the past , this time the RWA ’ s response was lackluster , a stance many assumed was linked to Suede ’ s still-cozy relationship with the press , which is undergoing a restructuring .
The RWA ’ s multicultural chapter , known as CIMRWA , spearheaded a petition to hold a recall vote to remove Suede — which then had to be completely scrapped , even though it garnered the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ RWA administration allegedly pushed back against it over technical reasons .
Despite having to start over from scratch , the chapter began a new petition and once again successfully collected the mandatory number of signatures needed to force a recall vote , and the RWA finally accepted the petition .
With all these problems mounting and no clear leadership or strong answers forthcoming from RWA , many members voiced serious apprehension about the organization ’ s sustainability .
On December 26 , 28 RWA chapter presidents , led by CIMRWA , and former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the resignation of all the members of RWA ’ s board and staff .
“ We are writing this letter as Members in Good Standing of RWA feeling utterly hopeless for this organization , ” the letter began .
“ The last few days have revealed a failure of leadership in RWA that makes us wonder if there is anywhere to go from here.
” That same day , the RWA board issued an open letter announcing many board resignations , including board president Carolyn Jewel and eight other board members , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and supporters of Milan who consequently resigned in protest .
“ As it stands now , the organization is at a turning point , ” the statement read .
“ We have lost the trust of our membership and the romance community and we must find a way to rebuild that.
” But many of the organization ’ s members who ’ ve fought to change the organization from within have now given up , and nearly 1,100 people have indicated support for starting a new organization .
“ This is not MY @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the RWA .
“ It is never going to be my organization again.
” In a statement to Vox , Milan observed , “ This entire matter has been a massive breach of fiduciary duty , and I am heartbroken that an organization that I served for four years has decided to set itself on fire in a win for absolutely nobody.
” Meanwhile , amid the maelstrom , author Davis backtracked her complaint that helped kick-start the whole ordeal , telling the Guardian on January 4 that the RWA administration [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s paid staff rather than its elected board of directors ] had used her and Tisdale “ to accomplish something they wanted to accomplish.
” She added , “ I was stunned when I saw the penalties [ for Milan ] .
I didn ’ t ever expect that , and I did not want that.
” As it stands , RWA is in complete disarray .
As mentioned , the organization has canceled the 2020 RITA Awards .
The RWA ’ s mystery/suspense chapter has also canceled its annual award , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national conference , prompting wry comparisons of the fiasco to the notorious Dashcon , which went viral in 2014 as a disastrously disorganized grift of its attendees : Six of the board ’ s 12 seats are now vacant .
RWA ’ s secretary has also resigned .
And Suede , after resisting weeks of pressure from RWA members to resign , finally stepped down amid emerging evidence that he lacked the requisite number of published novels to hold the role and may have fabricated the existence of a novel to meet the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ past two weeks have been the most painful and tumultuous in the history of Romance Writers of America ( RWA ) , ” reads an unsigned statement from the board announcing Suede ’ s departure , issued on January 9 .
The statement goes on to outline changes it has made or plans to make in an effort to rebuild the RWA .
These include hiring an outside firm to audit the organization ’ s codes and procedures — though Milan and her supporters have called this move “ substantially meaningless ” — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to restructure its awards system .
“ We may not always get it right , but we will do our best , we will be honest and transparent , we will own our mistakes , and we will listen to our community , ” the statement concludes .
“ We hope you will join us — collaboratively and productively — in rebuilding an RWA that serves its diverse and talented members well into the future .
We believe this community is worth saving.
” But many RWA members have emphasized that while the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are only the first step .
“ DON ’ T CELEBRATE YET , ” tweeted author Bria Quinlan .
“ We need to focus on transparency and deal [ with ] the ongoing aggression toward and suppression of all authors of marginalized groups within our community.
” “ We ’ re now left with the smoking remains of RWA , ” echoed writer Trish Milburn .
“ [ W ] e have to figure out where to go from here .
The systemic problems that led us here must be rooted out and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rebuild .
This will not be easy , but it ’ s necessary.
” “ I keep thinking how very American this RWA situation is , ” Alyssa Cole wrote .
“ The organization was started by a Black woman and now bigots get to keep the infrastructure she and many other marginalized authors built , the money and connections , while we ’ re forced to start from scratch somewhere else.
” Amid all of the anger and hurt that RWA members are still working through , there ’ s a tiny @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may have worked after all : Davis told the Guardian that she ’ s grudgingly made some changes to the e-book edition of her Somewhere Lies the Moon .
Meanwhile , for many romance writers , the work goes on .
Update : This story has been updated to include additional quotes and tweets from writers of color , as well as additional details about the petition to recall Damon Suede .

The romance writing community’s biggest professional organization is in shambles due to an institutional meltdown over racialized politics. It’s a giant imbroglio involving questions of how to bring progressive change to a 40-year-old organization whose membership is increasingly diversifying — and the ramifications are about much more than romance.
Formed in 1980 by the groundbreaking black romance editor Vivian Stephens, Romance Writers of America (RWA) is a trade organization that essentially functions as a union for its 9,000 members, most of whom are published or aspiring romance authors. Its major annual awards, the RITA Awards, are the most prestigious honor in the romance writing community, and past winners have included bestselling romance titans like Nora Roberts, Diana Gabaldon, and Julia Quinn.
But on January 6, the RWA announced it would cancel the 2020 RITA ceremony, previously scheduled for July as part of the annual national RWA conference, after many nominees withdrew their work from consideration and many judges said they would no longer participate. Then on January 8, major romance novel publishers like Harlequin and Avon began to withdraw from attending the RWA national conference, putting the event in jeopardy as well. And on January 9, both the new RWA president, Damon Suede (who’d only officially held the role for about two weeks), and the organization’s executive director, Carol Ritter, resigned. (Contacted by Vox for comment, the RWA referred to its official announcement of Suede’s departure and clarified that Ritter, who is staying on for several months to assist with the organization’s transition, will not have another staff role following her departure.)
These developments are the latest in an ongoing spiral into institutional chaos and backlash that began just before Christmas, when the board of RWA suspended one of the organization’s most popular members, Courtney Milan, for publicly critiquing perceived racism and racist writing by other members. The board’s decision initially caused outrage — and eventually betrayed a massive institutional failure, as emerging details revealed to shocked RWA members that Milan’s suspension was built on a lie and mired in mysterious backchanneling — all in what seems to have been a concerted attempt to oust Milan, who some members may have perceived as a progressive rabble-rouser, from a position of influence within RWA.
That in itself might not have been enough to seriously threaten the institution’s survival — but Milan is a beloved author of color, fighting against systemic racism in an organization with a long, fraught history of sidelining or overtly offending marginalized authors. Now, many of its members are giving up the fight, and RWA’s pledges to change may not be enough to save it.
What happened
In a December board meeting, the RWA board voted to suspend and permanently ban from leadership one of its most famous members, Courtney Milan. Milan is known for historical novels containing progressive social elements like interracial relationships and proto-feminist heroines. She served on the RWA board from 2014 to 2018, and won an RWA service award in 2019 for her leadership promoting diversity within the organization.
Milan was serving as the chair of RWA’s ethics committee in August 2019 when she participated in a widespread social media conversation regarding two editors from the same small publishing house, Glenfinnan. The conversation started when Carolyn Jewel — who was then the president-elect of the RWA — blocked one of the editors, Sue Grimshaw, on Twitter after she noticed Grimshaw had “Liked” a series of tweets Jewel perceived to be racist, including a tweet questioning whether white supremacy was real. From there, many people, including Milan, took part in a discussion about Grimshaw and her alleged history of gatekeeping books by authors of color.
And this is all a perfect illustration of the difference between prejudice and racism, and what systemic power looks like. — Courtney!!! Milan (@courtneymilan) August 16, 2019
Several participants in the discussion, including Milan, then also examined a book by another Glenfinnan editor, Kathryn Lynn Davis, and noted its use of racist stereotypes. The book, Somewhere Lies the Moon, was published in 1999 and contained passages in which Chinese women are described as inherently “demure and quiet” and “modest and submissive.”
As a result of these social media conversations, Glenfinnan’s publisher, Suzan Tisdale, along with Davis, filed complaints against Milan in August and September. The complaints alleged that Milan’s outspoken social media critique had caused both of them to lose business opportunities. RWA has never confirmed that it verified the truth of the allegations made in Davis and Tisdale’s claims, and acknowledged in a subsequent statement, released in December, that “It is clear that there were failures in our current standard procedures, and the Code of Ethics and the processes surrounding it will be reviewed.” Davis later stated that she had exaggerated many of the details in her complaint, including assertions she “lost” a three-book contract because of Milan; one author who pulled their books from Glenfinnan later disputed the assertions in Tisdale’s complaint as well.
Tisdale and Davis, who are both white, were upset that Milan, who is of Chinese descent, had used social media — and particularly Twitter, where she has more than 30,000 followers — to call out Grimshaw and Davis’s alleged racism. Milan “terrifies people into remaining quiet simply because of her reach on Twitter. People are genuinely afraid of being ‘on her list,’” Tisdale’s complaint read. Tisdale also suggested that Milan chairing the RWA ethics committee was “akin to putting a neo-Nazi in charge of a UN human rights committee ... Ms. Milan is not what the face of RWA needs to be.”
In her complaint, Davis asserted that Milan had unfairly trashed her book. “Milan ... quashes creativity and growth through the use of terror tactics,” she wrote. Davis also claimed her book is immune to racialized critique because it “was written in the 1990s and is historically accurate, which makes it both immune from and irrelevant to current judgments of racist literature.”
In response, Milan asserted her right to voice criticism. And in a response to Davis specifically, she argued, “Davis is explicitly asking RWA to create a world in which I, as a woman of color, must be explicitly barred from using my voice to criticize a novel with a protagonist who shares my race, because she believes that she should be ‘immune’ from criticism of the book.”
In essence, Milan was arguing, the question raised by Davis and Tisdale’s complaints was about whether RWA would support the rights of writers of color to publicly confront systemic and harmful racism where they see it — or whether the organization would support Tisdale and Davis in their efforts to avoid facing consequences, including financial harm, for actions and writing that had been perceived as racist.
But this question, as it turned out, was much bigger than it seemed.
The controversy over Milan’s social media posts is about a lot more than romance
On one level, the ethics complaints Davis and Tisdale filed with the RWA are about questions that are fundamental to storytelling, all of which revolve around a central theme: How do we tell stories about people from marginalized communities?
Perhaps the author’s right to artistic freedom trumps everything, and it’s effectively censorship to tell someone they can’t write about whatever they want to write about. Or perhaps it’s censorship to tell readers they can’t critique fiction they see as uncritically reinforcing harmful and racist tropes. Perhaps that censorship is unfair if the fiction itself is outdated and reliant on outdated historical research, even when it plays into harmful tropes — and even when the author argues, as Davis did, that the fiction is still historically accurate decades later.
And when social norms change, and stories that once looked inclusive to mainstream culture now look prejudiced or bigoted, how do we respond? Is it right to think about the author, who most likely wrote from a place of ignorance rather than malice, and didn’t realize that what they were writing was offensive or harmful? Or is it right to think about the reader? After all, readers shouldn’t have to deal with problematic tropes, and the onus shouldn’t be on them to forgive and forget — especially not in the romance genre, which is supposed to bring its readers joy.
Versions of this debate have been working their way through various publishing communities for years, often flaring up in messy and public fights over specific incidents. In the past five years alone, the science fiction and fantasy community had to deal with the problem of the “Sad Puppies,” an alt-right mob that tried to push progressive writers out of the Hugo Awards in 2015 and 2016. The literary fiction community spent 2016 debating whether it was acceptable for Lionel Shriver to wear a sombrero while she talked about why she thinks cultural appropriation is a myth. And the YA community has been embroiled in a series of public scandals as various authors have canceled and then un-canceled their books when accused of racism.
Romance is publishing’s biggest and most lucrative genre, and RWA is that genre’s biggest professional organization, so the way it handles conflicts helps set the tone for the entire industry. Moreover, romance is the genre through which we as a culture talk about love and relationships, which is to say it’s the genre through which we talk about how we want human beings to relate to one another. So the way we talk through these questions in the romance community is vital.
“Romancelandia,” as the community is widely known, has debated these questions before. But the events surrounding Milan’s suspension from RWA and RWA’s subsequent cancellation of the RITAs have combined these questions about the art of romance writing itself with even tougher questions about institutional gatekeeping and systemic discrimination.
In suspending Milan, RWA demonstrated how willing it is to use false shows of progressivism to protect an enshrined system of institutional racism. And Milan’s suspension was just the beginning.
The plot thickens ... and thickens, and thickens
The RWA board voted on the ethics panel’s findings on December 17, and RWA members found out about Milan’s suspension on December 23, through a viral tweet thread by fellow author Alyssa Cole announcing the news. Backlash was immediate: The news prompted mass membership cancellations, and the hashtag #IStandWithCourtney was a top Twitter trend on Christmas Eve. RWA members who’d submitted their novels to the annual RITA Awards began to withdraw their entries.
Full Disclosure: I withdrew The Chai Factor from the RITA awards last night. As it seems that refunds are being processed, I decided that I'd prefer my money back over making a statement. The award is tainted and had always been, and I was never going to accept it anyway. https://t.co/tYXr4Ou9DX — Farah Heron (@FarahHeron) January 3, 2020
It breaks my heart that the organization that has taught me so much and given me such amazing community, has left me no choice but to withdraw as a judge and to withdraw my book ENGAGING THE ENEMY and novella THE RIVAL BID from RITA consideration. 1 of 3 — "on deadline" (@ReeseRyanWrites) January 3, 2020
So, in conclusion, I am a 5-time RITA nominee and I won in 2008 for Best Novel With Strong Romantic Elements. I am returning my trophy to the RWA national office. I want no honors from them. #IstandwithCourtney — Deanna Raybourn (@deannaraybourn) December 24, 2019
Through all of this, members were slowly piecing together the process that resulted in Milan’s suspension. The details that emerged sounded like the stuff of a Cold War spy mission, not the goings-on of a professional organization for romance authors. Members quickly realized that a ruling on Davis and Tisdale’s complaints had been delayed until after a board meeting in early October, when the rules governing the ethics committee had been strategically altered to give RWA’s then-president-elect, queer romance author Damon Suede, the power to personally appoint an anonymous panel to hear the complaints against Milan. The entire existing ethics committee was then replaced, without the knowledge of its members, by a new, secret panel formed just to hear Milan’s case. The real ethics committee had no idea any of this was happening, or that complaints against Milan had even been filed.
Despite siding with Milan on three of the four points against her, the secret committee still confusingly recommended she be punished with a one-year suspension and a lifetime ban from holding any leadership positions in RWA, a response that thousands of RWA members believed was unwarranted and at the very least overly harsh and disproportionate. According to former RWA president Leslie Kelly, “This was the kind of issue that, at most, would have possibly merited a warning letter.”
40/ But a year’s suspension? Never again serving as an officer? That sounds like something you would deem suitable for somebody who defrauded a chapter, stole money, lied, plagiarized. NOT somebody who simply pointed out racism where it deserved to be pointed out. — Leslie Kelly (@lesliekelly) December 26, 2019
But that’s not even the wildest (or most concerning) part. Ultimately, the only person who ever spoke to the secret second ethics committee directly was then-president-elect Suede, and because of all the secrecy, RWA members compared notes, soon realizing that Suede had a history of lying, according to Milan and many other RWA members, to steal credit for others’ work, trash-talk fellow authors, or scare and flatter them in turn. He even allegedly lied about random details like knowing the true identity of pseudonymous author Chuck Tingle, all seemingly to amass political power within RWA and the romance writing community. Suede also seems to have lied about the secret committee, offering a made-up reason, according to members of the real ethics committee, for why it needed to exist. (Suede has not responded to Vox’s request for comment.)
The ensuing alarm from RWA’s membership was extensive. RWA chapters across the country issued statements of support for Milan; more than 50 agents, and 18 former RWA presidents and board members, published open letters demanding an explanation. Open letters signed by authors and reviewers drew more than 1,300 signatures of support. Organizations that partnered with RWA began to cut ties, and several writing conferences rescinded invitations to feature Suede as a guest. Prominent authors weighed in — and as awareness spread, public opinion was clearly on Milan’s side.
Welp, if Romancelandia is going to split in two, I'm going to be on the Courtney Milan side. — Linda Holmes (@lindaholmes) December 24, 2019
Among the authors who commented was sci-fi’s N.K. Jemisin, who recalled the similar shocking moment in the science fiction community that led to the ongoing cultural clash that ultimately led to Jemisin’s history-making Hugo-winning three-peat. “RWA can recover, too,” she wrote. “It will take a bloodletting, but it’s possible.”
But at that point, the chaos inside the RWA was still expanding, with many additional details yet to emerge.
After holding an emergency meeting on December 24, the day after news of Milan’s suspension became public, the RWA board reversed its decision and reinstated Milan. But more baffling revelations were still coming to light, many concerning organizational disenfranchisement. These included a litany of allegations from members who said they’d filed complaints with RWA after experiencing bigotry and bias, only to be ignored, punished, or stonewalled in their efforts; accounts of extensive gatekeeping, sometimes inexplicable but often insidious and discriminatory; and reports of routine bigotry and microaggressions within various RWA chapters.
And now to see this stuff about Courtney Milan, I'm done. RWA never felt quite right to me, but I had been hopeful for all the talk about changes. All those microaggressions and things I experienced I chalked up to as growing pains. But no more excuses. #IStandWithCourtneyMilan — Thao Le (@ThaoLe8) December 24, 2019
RWA members also raised concerns about Suede’s allegedly unethical business relationship with a small press that has been failing to pay its authors for months, including many RWA authors. Despite taking action against such publishers in the past, this time the RWA’s response was lackluster, a stance many assumed was linked to Suede’s still-cozy relationship with the press, which is undergoing a restructuring.
The RWA’s multicultural chapter, known as CIMRWA, spearheaded a petition to hold a recall vote to remove Suede — which then had to be completely scrapped, even though it garnered the required number of signatures, because the RWA administration allegedly pushed back against it over technical reasons. Despite having to start over from scratch, the chapter began a new petition and once again successfully collected the mandatory number of signatures needed to force a recall vote, and the RWA finally accepted the petition.
With all these problems mounting and no clear leadership or strong answers forthcoming from RWA, many members voiced serious apprehension about the organization’s sustainability. On December 26, 28 RWA chapter presidents, led by CIMRWA, and former board members issued an open letter calling for the resignation of all the members of RWA’s board and staff.
“We are writing this letter as Members in Good Standing of RWA feeling utterly hopeless for this organization,” the letter began. “The last few days have revealed a failure of leadership in RWA that makes us wonder if there is anywhere to go from here.”
That same day, the RWA board issued an open letter announcing many board resignations, including board president Carolyn Jewel and eight other board members, most of whom were women of color and supporters of Milan who consequently resigned in protest. “As it stands now, the organization is at a turning point,” the statement read. “We have lost the trust of our membership and the romance community and we must find a way to rebuild that.”
But many of the organization’s members who’ve fought to change the organization from within have now given up, and nearly 1,100 people have indicated support for starting a new organization. “This is not MY organization any longer,” Milan said of the RWA. “It is never going to be my organization again.”
In a statement to Vox, Milan observed, “This entire matter has been a massive breach of fiduciary duty, and I am heartbroken that an organization that I served for four years has decided to set itself on fire in a win for absolutely nobody.”
Meanwhile, amid the maelstrom, author Davis backtracked her complaint that helped kick-start the whole ordeal, telling the Guardian on January 4 that the RWA administration [that is, a member of RWA’s paid staff rather than its elected board of directors] had used her and Tisdale “to accomplish something they wanted to accomplish.” She added, “I was stunned when I saw the penalties [for Milan]. I didn’t ever expect that, and I did not want that.”
As it stands, RWA is in complete disarray. As mentioned, the organization has canceled the 2020 RITA Awards. The RWA’s mystery/suspense chapter has also canceled its annual award, and publishers continue to withdraw from the national conference, prompting wry comparisons of the fiasco to the notorious Dashcon, which went viral in 2014 as a disastrously disorganized grift of its attendees:
live footage of the rwa convention pic.twitter.com/HmlRUQexkr — jack harbon is drafting (20/50k) (@JackHarbon) January 9, 2020
Six of the board’s 12 seats are now vacant. RWA’s secretary has also resigned. And Suede, after resisting weeks of pressure from RWA members to resign, finally stepped down amid emerging evidence that he lacked the requisite number of published novels to hold the role of RWA president and may have fabricated the existence of a novel to meet the criteria.
“The events of the past two weeks have been the most painful and tumultuous in the history of Romance Writers of America (RWA),” reads an unsigned statement from the board announcing Suede’s departure, issued on January 9. The statement goes on to outline changes it has made or plans to make in an effort to rebuild the RWA. These include hiring an outside firm to audit the organization’s codes and procedures — though Milan and her supporters have called this move “substantially meaningless” — and hiring a diversity and inclusion consultant to restructure its awards system.
“We may not always get it right, but we will do our best, we will be honest and transparent, we will own our mistakes, and we will listen to our community,” the statement concludes. “We hope you will join us — collaboratively and productively — in rebuilding an RWA that serves its diverse and talented members well into the future. We believe this community is worth saving.”
But many RWA members have emphasized that while the resignations were a necessary step, they are only the first step. “DON’T CELEBRATE YET,” tweeted author Bria Quinlan. “We need to focus on transparency and deal [with] the ongoing aggression toward and suppression of all authors of marginalized groups within our community.”
“We’re now left with the smoking remains of RWA,” echoed writer Trish Milburn. “[W]e have to figure out where to go from here. The systemic problems that led us here must be rooted out and dealt with before we can begin to rebuild. This will not be easy, but it’s necessary.”
No RITAs. Likely no conference now. A completely damaged reputation.
And all y'all had to do was treat the marginalized ppl in your org as professionals.
That is the lowest of bars.
Unpack your 'isms. It will be the death of everything you care about if you don't. — Melissa Blue (@mel_thegreat) January 8, 2020
Not everyone has faith that the RWA can be rebuilt. “While Damon Suede and the Executive Director, Carol Ritter, have resigned,” Milan said in a statement to Vox, “RWA’s statements lack transparency, apologies, or any semblance of responsibility. I do not as yet see a path forward for RWA.”
“I keep thinking how very American this RWA situation is,” Alyssa Cole wrote. “The organization was started by a Black woman and now bigots get to keep the infrastructure she and many other marginalized authors built, the money and connections, while we’re forced to start from scratch somewhere else.”
Reading this hurt. Then I got angry. Now I want to fight. — A.M. Griffin (A.K.A Lil' Intro Vert) (@AMGriffinbooks) December 27, 2019
Amid all of the anger and hurt that RWA members are still working through, there’s a tiny sign that Milan’s original callout may have worked after all: Davis told the Guardian that she’s grudgingly made some changes to the e-book edition of her Somewhere Lies the Moon.
Meanwhile, for many romance writers, the work goes on.
Waking up to find RWA in shambles is no fun, but there are still deadlines to meet, personal connections to hold close, and HEAs filled with hope and heart to craft. The future of the organization may be shaky but our commitment to our beloved genre is not. Sending love. Write. — Beverly Jenkins (@authorMsBev) December 26, 2019
Update: This story has been updated to include additional quotes and tweets from writers of color, as well as additional details about the petition to recall Damon Suede and an updated statement from Courtney Milan.


vox--2020-01-10--The new MIT report on Jeffrey Epstein raises questions about how much to blame billionaires like Bil

The new MIT report on Jeffrey Epstein raises questions about how much to blame billionaires like Bill Gates

For months , tech billionaires have been on the ropes over the ties they maintained with money manager Jeffrey Epstein well after he was indicted and registered as a sex offender in 2008 .
Many of those connections centered around MIT ’ s Media Lab , an institution popular in Silicon Valley and that had a concealed fundraising relationship with Epstein .
But many of those billionaires — from Bill Gates to Reid Hoffman — weren ’ t exactly revealing about their ties to Epstein when he was arrested this summer , or were at least quick to defend the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Epstein situation .
And so many hoped that a months-in-the-making external report from lawyers hired by MIT would finally put those questions to rest .
But when the report was released Friday , investigators skirted direct answers and statements of fact , and ultimately failed to settle some of the basic questions about Silicon Valley ’ s responsibility for nurturing Epstein .
A Gates representative didn ’ t return a request for comment .
A Hoffman representative referred to an apology Hoffman issued earlier this year about his interactions with Epstein .
Let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ until-recently richest man in the world has consistently downplayed his ties to Epstein , telling one reporter , “ I didn ’ t have any business relationship or friendship with him.
” But Gates is among the tech billionaires with the most extensive , disclosed ties to Epstein .
Whether Epstein and Gates did have a “ business relationship ” has been disputed .
Gates did make a $ 2 million donation to the Media Lab in 2014 .
And Ronan Farrow reported in The New Yorker that Epstein was credited with securing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying that Epstein had “ directed ” the gift or made it at his instruction .
“ Gates is making this gift at the recommendation of a friend of his who wishes to remain anonymous , ” the record read .
Gates ’ aides denied Epstein ’ s direction of the gift .
But if he did , as Farrow reported he did , it raises the possibility that Gates was somehow complicit in the image rehabilitation of Epstein and part of an unseemly cover-up .
But MIT investigators did little to help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ In 2014 , Epstein claimed to have arranged for Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates to provide an anonymous $ 2 million donation to the Media Lab , ” MIT ’ s lawyers wrote in the 63-page report .
“ Representatives of Bill Gates have told us that Gates flatly denies that Epstein had anything to do with Gates ’ s donation.
” This , suffice it to say , skirts the question of who is telling the truth — and effectively leaves it as an unresolved he-said-she-said .
When Recode asked the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sidestep was intentional , they would only say that “ we didn ’ t see any evidence ” that Gates or any Gates entity “ were donating money from Mr. Epstein or that they were donating money at the behest of Mr. Epstein.
” They used similar language — “ there is no evidence ” — to respond to the notion that Gates acted to “ launder ” Epstein ’ s money by donating money that didn ’ t belong to the Microsoft founder .
In the report , MIT ’ s investigators @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happen — just that they didn ’ t see any evidence of it .
And that statement would then have to be reconciled with MIT ’ s internal records , which offer at least some evidence to the contrary .
While there are many reasons to doubt the credibility of Epstein and of Joi Ito , the ousted head of the MIT Media Lab , there are also reasons why Gates and his denial should be scrutinized .
Despite Gates ’ public comments minimizing his ties to Epstein , the New York Times @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meeting privately , to say nothing of Gates ’ underlings .
At one point , Gates told colleagues that the lifestyle of Epstein , who at that point was already a convicted sex offender , was “ intriguing.
” ( A spokesperson told the Times that the comment had nothing to do with Epstein ’ s lurid past . )
“ Bill Gates regrets ever meeting with Epstein and recognizes it was an error in judgment to do so , ” a Gates spokesperson told the paper this fall .
That brings us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ apologized over Epstein — Reid Hoffman .
The LinkedIn founder and political powerbroker has his own ties to Epstein through the Media Lab , where he sits on the advisory board .
Hoffman helped raise money for the Media Lab , which involved fundraising solicitation meetings with the sex offender .
“ By agreeing to participate in any fundraising activity where Epstein was present , I helped to repair his reputation and perpetuate injustice .
For this , I am deeply regretful , ” Hoffman said this September .
Hoffman has said that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him that Epstein has cleared MIT ’ s vetting process .
He even went so far as to bring Epstein out to Palo Alto for a dinner with people like Mark Zuckerberg , Elon Musk and Peter Thiel in 2015 .
( Reminder : Epstein had been convicted on child prostitution charges for seven years by this point . )
That was the last time that Hoffman saw Epstein .
But as recently as this August , Hoffman was standing up strongly for Ito and his handling of the Epstein situation .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in September to apologize .
And this new report from MIT makes clear that Hoffman and Epstein had other interactions over the years .
In July 2013 , Epstein visited the MIT campus to meet with Hoffman and others .
And Hoffman continued to be consulted on Epstein matters .
“ In July 2016 , Ito sought advice from Reid Hoffman about whether to allow Epstein to attend a conference ( perhaps the announcement of the Media Lab Directors ’ Fellows ) with “ lots of people ” who may “ see him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” the authors write .
What they don ’ t write is what Hoffman actually advised Ito .
That ’ s one of many things that we still need to know to fully account for Silicon Valley ’ s complicity in the Epstein saga .

For months, tech billionaires have been on the ropes over the ties they maintained with money manager Jeffrey Epstein well after he was indicted and registered as a sex offender in 2008. Many of those connections centered around MIT’s Media Lab, an institution popular in Silicon Valley and that had a concealed fundraising relationship with Epstein.
But many of those billionaires — from Bill Gates to Reid Hoffman — weren’t exactly revealing about their ties to Epstein when he was arrested this summer, or were at least quick to defend the Media Lab’s leadership over the Epstein situation.
Many hoped that a months-in-the-making external report from lawyers hired by MIT would finally put those questions to rest. But when the report was released Friday, investigators skirted direct answers and statements of fact, and ultimately failed to settle some of the basic questions about Silicon Valley’s responsibility for nurturing Epstein.
A Gates representative didn’t return a request for comment. A Hoffman representative referred to an apology Hoffman issued earlier this year about his interactions with Epstein.
Let’s start with Gates. The until-recently richest man in the world has consistently downplayed his ties to Epstein, telling one reporter, “I didn’t have any business relationship or friendship with him.” But Gates is among the tech billionaires with the most extensive disclosed ties to Epstein.
Whether Epstein and Gates did have a “business relationship” has been disputed. Gates did make a $2 million donation to the Media Lab in 2014. And Ronan Farrow reported in the New Yorker that Epstein was credited with securing the Gates money, with internal records saying that Epstein had “directed” the gift or that it was made at his instruction.
“Gates is making this gift at the recommendation of a friend of his who wishes to remain anonymous,” the record read.
Gates’s aides denied Epstein’s direction of the gift. But if he did, as Farrow reported he did, it raises the possibility that Gates was somehow complicit in the image rehabilitation of Epstein and part of an unseemly cover-up.
But MIT investigators did little to help establish truth and fiction in the situation.
“In 2014, Epstein claimed to have arranged for Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates to provide an anonymous $2 million donation to the Media Lab,” MIT’s lawyers wrote in the 63-page report. “Representatives of Bill Gates have told us that Gates flatly denies that Epstein had anything to do with Gates’s donation.”
This, suffice it to say, skirts the question of who is telling the truth — and effectively leaves it as an unresolved he said, she said.
When Recode asked the lawyers involved in the report if this sidestep was intentional, they would only say that “we didn’t see any evidence” that Gates or any Gates entity “were donating money from Mr. Epstein or that they were donating money at the behest of Mr. Epstein.” They used similar language — “there is no evidence” — to respond to the notion that Gates acted to “launder” Epstein’s money by donating money that didn’t belong to the Microsoft founder.
In the report, MIT’s investigators do not definitively say it did not happen — just that they didn’t see any evidence of it. And that statement would then have to be reconciled with MIT’s internal records, which offer at least some evidence to the contrary.
While there are many reasons to doubt the credibility of Epstein and of Joi Ito, the ousted head of the MIT Media Lab, there are also reasons why Gates and his denial should be scrutinized.
Despite Gates’s public comments minimizing his ties to Epstein, the New York Times uncovered numerous instances of the two meeting privately, to say nothing of Gates’s underlings. At one point, Gates told colleagues that the lifestyle of Epstein, who at that point was already a convicted sex offender, was “intriguing.” (A spokesperson told the Times the comment had nothing to do with Epstein’s lurid past.)
“Bill Gates regrets ever meeting with Epstein and recognizes it was an error in judgment to do so,” a Gates spokesperson told the paper this fall.
That brings us to another Silicon Valley luminary who has apologized over Epstein: Reid Hoffman. The LinkedIn founder and political powerbroker has his own ties to Epstein through the Media Lab, where he sits on the advisory board. Hoffman helped raise money for the Media Lab, which involved fundraising solicitation meetings with the sex offender.
“By agreeing to participate in any fundraising activity where Epstein was present, I helped to repair his reputation and perpetuate injustice. For this, I am deeply regretful,” Hoffman said.
Hoffman has said that he vouched for Epstein because Ito told him Epstein had cleared MIT’s vetting process. He even went so far as to bring Epstein out to Palo Alto in 2015 for a dinner with people like Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, and Peter Thiel. (Reminder: Epstein had been convicted on child prostitution charges for seven years by this point.)
That was the last time that Hoffman saw Epstein. But as recently as last August, Hoffman was standing up strongly for Ito and his handling of the Epstein situation. It took Hoffman until Farrow’s story in September to apologize.
And this new report from MIT makes clear that Hoffman and Epstein had other interactions over the years. In July 2013, Epstein visited the MIT campus to meet with Hoffman and others. And Hoffman continued to be consulted on Epstein matters.
“In July 2016, Ito sought advice from Reid Hoffman about whether to allow Epstein to attend a conference (perhaps the announcement of the Media Lab Directors’ Fellows) with “lots of people” who may “see him and maybe know he’s involved,” the authors write.
What they don’t write is what Hoffman actually advised Ito. That’s one of many things we still need to know to fully account for Silicon Valley’s complicity in the Epstein saga.


vox--2020-01-10--Vox Sentences: On Iran, a resolute House

The news , but shorter .
Your daily wrap-up for the day in news .
Subscribe to get Vox Sentences delivered straight to your inbox .
This story is part of a group of stories called Vox Sentences is your daily digest for what ’ s happening in the world .
Sign up for the Vox Sentences newsletter , delivered straight to your inbox Monday through Friday , or view the Vox Sentences archive for past editions .
Congress rebukes the president on Iran ; a ceasefire in Libya falls through .
The House says no to war with Iran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president , the House voted Thursday to rein in presidential war powers and cease all military action toward Iran following a US missile strike last week that killed a top Iranian general .
[ CBS / Grace Segers ] • Democratic lawmakers have argued that Gen. Qassem Soleimani did not pose an “ imminent threat ” to the US and that his killing exceeded the limits of presidential power .
[ Politico / Sarah Ferris and Andrew Desiderio ] • The measure draws on a Vietnam-era law , the War Powers Resolution , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ powers and force the president to seek congressional authorization for any further action against Iran .
However , the resolution passed in the House is not binding .
[ NYT / Catie Edmondson and Charlie Savage ] • A similar Senate resolution gained bipartisan momentum Wednesday after lawmakers received a briefing on the strike .
Sen. Mike Lee ( R-UT ) described parts of the briefing as “ insulting and demeaning.
” [ Washington Post / Aaron Blake ] • Lee and fellow Republican Sen. Rand Paul ( KY ) said they would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ war powers resolution , but the bill would need at least four Republican votes to have a chance of passing .
[ Roll Call / Rachel Oswald ] • Unlike the House resolution , Kaine ’ s bill would be binding — but even if it survives in the Senate , it would face a near-certain presidential veto .
[ NPR / Claudia Grisales ] • The House last year supported a different measure that could have limited the president ’ s power to wage war against Iran .
The amendment garnered bipartisan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the final version of the National Defense Authorization Act .
[ Vox / Emily Stewart and Li Zhou ] No end in sight for Libyan civil war • Despite backing different sides in Libya ’ s ongoing civil war , Russia and Turkey on Wednesday called for a ceasefire in the conflict between Libya ’ s United Nations-backed government and warlord Khalifa Haftar .
[ NYT / Carlotta Gall ] • Turkey has deepened its involvement in Libya recently by deploying troops in support of the Government of National Accord .
Turkish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that the troops are not there to fight .
[ Economist ] • President Trump isn ’ t keen on Turkey getting involved in any capacity .
He warned Erdogan last week that “ foreign interference is complicating the situation in Libya.
” [ BBC ] • For now , it seems there ’ s little prospect of a truce : Haftar rejected the idea of a ceasefire in a statement Thursday .
[ Al Jazeera ] • Clashes will likely continue for the foreseeable future as Haftar ’ s Libyan Arab @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s GNA-held capital , Tripoli .
[ AP / Noha Elhennawy ] • The International Olympic Committee wants to ban athlete protests at the 2020 Olympics .
[ Vox / Katelyn Burns ] • How the United Arab Emirates ’ Mohammed bin Zayed has quietly assumed a leading role in the Middle East .
[ NYT / Robert F. Worth ] • A “ megafire ” covering about 2,300 square miles has emerged in Australia as a historically bad fire season continues .
[ NPR / Scott Neuman ] • After his support @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Bernie Sanders is now the frontrunner in the Democratic presidential contest per some polls .
[ WSJ / Eliza Collins ] “ Let me be clear , I do not believe Democrats are in love with terrorists , and I apologize for what I said earlier this week.
” [ Republican Rep. Doug Collins walks back a comment attacking his Democratic colleagues / Politico ] Megan Rapinoe on pay equity and why she ’ s not running for political office .
[ Recode Decode / Kara Swisher ] Romance is publishing ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ community of writers is imploding .
“ You little pencil neck ” : Trump ’ s taunts of Schiff in Toledo were like a parody of a playground bully Are we morally obligated to meditate ?

Vox Sentences is your daily digest for what’s happening in the world. Sign up for the Vox Sentences newsletter, delivered straight to your inbox Monday through Friday, or view the Vox Sentences archive for past editions.
Congress rebukes the president on Iran; a ceasefire in Libya falls through.
The House says no to war with Iran
vox-mark Sign up for the newsletter Sentences Get the news, but shorter, in one daily newsletter. Thanks for signing up! Check your inbox for a welcome email. Email (required) Oops. Something went wrong. Please enter a valid email and try again. By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . You can opt out at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. For more newsletters, check out our newsletters page Subscribe
No end in sight for Libyan civil war
Despite backing different sides in Libya’s ongoing civil war, Russia and Turkey on Wednesday called for a ceasefire in the conflict between Libya’s United Nations-backed government and warlord Khalifa Haftar. [NYT / Carlotta Gall]
Turkey has deepened its involvement in Libya recently by deploying troops in support of the Government of National Accord. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan maintains, however, that the troops are not there to fight. [Economist]
President Trump isn’t keen on Turkey getting involved in any capacity. He warned Erdogan last week that “foreign interference is complicating the situation in Libya.” [BBC]
For now, it seems there’s little prospect of a truce: Haftar rejected the idea of a ceasefire in a statement Thursday. [Al Jazeera]
Clashes will likely continue for the foreseeable future as Haftar’s Libyan Arab Armed Forces attempt to take Libya’s GNA-held capital, Tripoli. [AP / Noha Elhennawy]
Miscellaneous
The International Olympic Committee wants to ban athlete protests at the 2020 Olympics. [Vox / Katelyn Burns]
How the United Arab Emirates’ Mohammed bin Zayed has quietly assumed a leading role in the Middle East. [NYT / Robert F. Worth]
A “megafire” covering about 2,300 square miles has emerged in Australia as a historically bad fire season continues. [NPR / Scott Neuman]
After his support flagged following a heart attack in October, Bernie Sanders is now the frontrunner in the Democratic presidential contest per some polls. [WSJ / Eliza Collins]
Verbatim
“Let me be clear, I do not believe Democrats are in love with terrorists, and I apologize for what I said earlier this week.” [Republican Rep. Doug Collins walks back a comment attacking his Democratic colleagues / Politico]
Listen to this: Recode Decode
Megan Rapinoe on pay equity and why she’s not running for political office. [Recode Decode / Kara Swisher]
Read more
Romance is publishing’s most lucrative genre. Its biggest community of writers is imploding.
7 questions about Harry and Meghan’s royal shake-up, answered
How fast food “became black”
“You little pencil neck”: Trump’s taunts of Schiff in Toledo were like a parody of a playground bully
Are we morally obligated to meditate?


vox--2020-01-10--Can the catastrophic fires bring some sanity to Australian climate politics?

Share All sharing options for : Can the catastrophic fires bring some sanity to Australian climate politics ?
The world is watching our country burn .
At least 17.9 million acres have got up in flames since September , an area 15 times the Amazon fires .
At least 27 people have died .
A billion animals and 2,000 homes may have been lost .
And we are only about halfway through the fire season .
A complex interplay of weather phenomena and systems — including a positive-phase Indian Ocean Dipole , the cycle of the temperature gradient between the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ocean — has created the tinder-dry landscape .
But the record temperatures and drought conditions linked to climate change have vastly intensified the fires .
The fires have also brought international scrutiny of our stance on climate change .
Why was Australia as the worst-performing country on climate policy in the 2020 Climate Change Performance Index ?
While the current fire catastrophe is unprecedented , these are not the first climate-related losses Australia has mourned .
Prolonged drought has devastated much of the agricultural sector , forcing many farming families off the land @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Great Barrier Reef , is dying .
So why did we team up with Brazil and Saudi Arabia to nearly derail the UN climate negotiations in Madrid at the COP25 if we have so much to lose ?
And why does Australia have no national energy policy ?
The answers are largely the same : Our politics is tainted by fossil fuel interests , doubt , and fear of change .
But the fire provides a unique opportunity to move forward .
Climate action has been brandished as a political weapon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for 1.3 percent of the global total , which doesn ’ t sound like much until you consider the size of our population .
With just 25.5 million people , we ’ re the second-highest per capita emitter in the world , behind Saudi Arabia .
Not included in this figure are emissions generated by burning the resources we sell : We ’ re the world ’ s largest exporter of both coal and liquified natural gas ( LNG ) .
But to understand why we have no national energy policy , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Labor opposition leader Kevin Rudd called climate change as the “ greatest moral challenge of our generation.
” He went on to win the election , but as prime minister he failed to pass an emissions trading scheme .
He was deposed by his deputy , Julia Gillard , who in 2012 introduced a price on carbon .
That was a big step .
“ We did actually succeed in placing a full market-based mechanism over two years , ” says John Connor , CEO of Australia ’ s Carbon Market Institute , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heavy emitters .
“ The carbon pricing mechanism reduced emissions while the economy grew.
” The carbon tax brought down emissions , but it may have cost the Labor Party control of the government .
Labor lost in 2013 after conservative Liberal National Party ( LNP ) leader Tony Abbott , on record for referring to climate change as “ absolute crap , ” campaigned on a promise to “ axe the tax.
” Abbott successfully established fear of climate action as a political weapon , leading the free-market Liberals away from a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ run ended in 2015 when he was rolled by Malcolm Turnbull , a Liberal moderate who once said , “ I will not lead a party that is not as committed to effective action on climate change as I am.
” It turned out his party agreed , and last year he was dumped after failing to reach party room consensus on national energy policy , due in part to the inclusion of modest emission reduction targets .
The man who replaced him as prime minister was Scott Morrison , who refers to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most famous for brandishing a lump of coal in parliament .
This brings us to the 2019 federal election , which played out amid a severe drought , reports of irreversible damage to the Great Barrier Reef , and a high-profile fight over the proposed Adani Carmichael coal mega-mine in the state of Queensland .
National polling put climate change on top of the list of critical threats to Australia ’ s vital interests over the next 10 years .
The Labor opposition promised ambitious , science-based emission reduction targets .
The incumbent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had quit expecting electoral wipeout ) behind Morrison , who warned of economic ruin under the opposition ’ s climate plan .
But polling showed a narrow race close to the election , and the Liberal party was returned to power .
No one was more surprised than Morrison himself .
“ I ’ ve always believed in miracles , ” he concluded .
Many , un-supernatural factors can explain this result : an unpopular opposition leader with an expansive reform agenda .
Moreover , the election was decided in the coal-rich electorates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Western Australia .
Voters in Queensland resented the caravan of climate campaigners from southern cities , who traveled through their towns protesting against the Adani coal mine , which promised thousands of jobs to the region .
The election became a contest between regional and urban , between past and future .
And between the status quo and the unknown .
“ As one of the world ’ s top fossil fuel exporters , we are straddling the barbed wire fence .
On one side climate risks and opportunities in cleaner technologies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entrenched interests , attitudes , and simple human inertia , ” Connor says .
Less easy to understand is why Australia ’ s identity as a major coal exporter is so inextricably linked to its inability to undergo an energy transition at home .
The vast majority of emissions from Australian coal are counted overseas .
Hypothetically , Australia could decouple its own economy from fossil fuels without impacting exports .
But neither side of politics will quickly forget that Morrison managed to make fear of the costs of climate action more terrifying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There has always been a tussle in the LNP between moderates and a small band of climate deniers .
But the moderates have a problem : weaponizing climate change keeps winning elections .
Will the fires be a catalyst for change ?
Australia ’ s fires have reignited the debate over this deadlock .
“ You can no longer argue that it ’ s just inner city ‘ woke ’ people who care about climate change , ” says Will Grant , a senior lecturer in science communication at the Australian National @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But he says the complexity of the catastrophe makes it possible for people to pick the information — some of which is deliberate misinformation from climate deniers — which fits their belief system .
“ An event like this may be catalyzing , but a lot of people will interpret these bushfires through their existing biases and beliefs about whether climate change is happening or not.
” Still , he says , “ It might be a moment .
Maybe this is the thing where the moderates in the Liberal party start @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the far-right anti-climate groups.
” “ I do hope we can use what we ’ ve seen , ” he says , “ and that we hear more conservative voices drawing a direct link between emissions and this crisis.
” One of those voices is a woman who served as deputy to both Turnbull and Abbott , before quitting politics at the last election .
Former Foreign Minister Julie Bishop was blunt when interviewed about the fires on breakfast television this week , saying , “ Australia is a highly developed country .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to show leadership ( on climate change ) , we can hardly blame other nations for likewise not showing leadership in this area.
” Australia ’ s “ leadership ” in the most recent COP25 in Madrid involved creative carbon accounting , raising a contentious argument that it should be able to use carryover credits from the Kyoto agreement , to meet its Paris targets .
“ Morrison deliberately misquoted data at the UN , to say we are reducing emissions when the data says that we are not ... that we are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a canter ’ when you can only do that if carry over all your Kyoto credits , ” says John Hewson , who led the federal Liberal party from 1990 to 1994 and now works with the Crawford School of Public Policy in Canberra .
“ That ’ s like some kid trying to count the six gold stars they got at the end of Primary School for their university admission .
It ’ s nonsense.
” Hewson believes more transparency from elected representatives on the issue of climate action is key @ @ @ @ @ @ @ handful of people within the coalition , with the support of the Murdoch press , to defend the indefensible .
“ I ’ d like to see every individual member of parliament declare their position and be responsible to their constituents .
Whatever poll you want to look at , you get overwhelming support for decisive action and it ’ s getting stronger.
” State governments are acutely aware of this , and have almost uniform net-zero 2050 targets , including the conservative-ruled states of South Australia and New South Wales .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the private sector is moving toward lowering emissions Blessed with boundless renewable resources and sitting on the doorstep of Asia , Australia is poised to benefit from an energy transition .
And in the absence of a government agenda , the market is evolving quickly .
Large-scale private investment in renewables is underway , with Australia ’ s per capita renewable energy growing at a rate 10 times the world average .
In the north , a number of mega-projects are in development , including one to export solar energy via subsea cable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to establish “ green hydrogen ” — an alternative fuel produced using only renewable energy — as a viable export commodity .
Industry is also agitating for policy certainty .
Heavy emitters including Rio Tinto , BHP , and Australia ’ s largest oil and gas companies Santos and Woodside have called for a price on carbon .
BHP has set a net-zero target for 2050 .
“ There is a sense of [ industry ] getting on with it and not being reliant on government , ” said Connor .
“ We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we ’ re talking about pressure from investors , prudential regulators , shareholders and consumers , so those forces are very actively at play whilst public policy is moving slowly .
I hope that at least one positive that will come out of this horror is that we can move to embrace the opportunities , as well as better managing the risk of the future that is facing us.
” So , when the smoke clears , will the Australian government end its climate inertia ?
“ I do think 2020 is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says .
“ Government has said it ’ s committed to completing a long-term strategy this year .
We are encouraged under the Paris agreement to have a mid-century emissions reduction strategy , and there will be incredible scrutiny on that.
” Perhaps we should all believe in miracles .
Michelle Crowther is an Australian journalist based in Perth .
She has worked in emissions reduction with the resources sector and holds a master ’ s degree in strategic communication focusing on climate change .

Share All sharing options for: Can the catastrophic fires bring some sanity to Australian climate politics?
The world is watching our country burn. More than 17.9 million acres have gone up in flames since September, an area 15 times the Amazon fires. At least 27 people have died. A billion animals and 2,000 homes may have been lost. And we are only about halfway through the fire season.
A complex interplay of weather phenomena and systems — including a positive-phase Indian Ocean Dipole, the cycle of the temperature gradient between the eastern and western parts of the Indian Ocean — has created the tinder-dry landscape. But the record temperatures and drought conditions linked to climate change have vastly intensified the fires.
The fires have also brought international scrutiny of our stance on climate change. Why was Australia as the worst-performing country on climate policy in the 2020 Climate Change Performance Index?
While the current fire catastrophe is unprecedented, these are not the first climate-related losses Australia has mourned. Prolonged drought has devastated much of the agricultural sector, forcing many farming families off the land. The jewel in our tourism crown, the Great Barrier Reef, is dying.
So why did we team up with Brazil and Saudi Arabia to nearly derail the UN climate negotiations in Madrid at the COP25 if we have so much to lose? And why does Australia have no national energy policy?
The answers are largely the same: Our politics is tainted by fossil fuel interests, doubt, and fear of change. But the fire provides a unique opportunity to move forward.
Climate action has been brandished as a political weapon
Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions account for 1.3 percent of the global total, which doesn’t sound like much until you consider the size of our population. With just 25.5 million people, we’re the second-highest per capita emitter in the world, behind Saudi Arabia. Not included in this figure are emissions generated by burning the resources we sell: We’re the world’s largest exporter of both coal and liquified natural gas (LNG).
But to understand why we have no national energy policy, we have to go back to 2007 when Labor opposition leader Kevin Rudd called climate change as the “greatest moral challenge of our generation.” He went on to win the election, but as prime minister he failed to pass an emissions trading scheme. He was deposed by his deputy, Julia Gillard, who in 2012 introduced a price on carbon.
That was a big step. “We did actually succeed in placing a full market-based mechanism over two years,” says John Connor, CEO of Australia’s Carbon Market Institute, with members ranging from conservation groups to heavy emitters. “The carbon pricing mechanism reduced emissions while the economy grew.”
The carbon tax brought down emissions, but it may have cost the Labor Party control of the government. Labor lost in 2013 after conservative Liberal National Party (LNP) leader Tony Abbott, on record for referring to climate change as “absolute crap,” campaigned on a promise to “axe the tax.”
Abbott successfully established fear of climate action as a political weapon, leading the free-market Liberals away from a market-based mechanism.
Abbot’s short run ended in 2015 when he was rolled by Malcolm Turnbull, a Liberal moderate who once said, “I will not lead a party that is not as committed to effective action on climate change as I am.”
It turned out his party agreed, and last year he was dumped after failing to reach party room consensus on national energy policy, due in part to the inclusion of modest emission reduction targets. The man who replaced him as prime minister was Scott Morrison, who refers to himself as ScoMo, back then arguably most famous for brandishing a lump of coal in parliament.
2019: The climate change election
This brings us to the 2019 federal election, which played out amid a severe drought, reports of irreversible damage to the Great Barrier Reef, and a high-profile fight over the proposed Adani Carmichael coal mega-mine in the state of Queensland. National polling put climate change on top of the list of critical threats to Australia’s vital interests over the next 10 years.
The Labor opposition promised ambitious, science-based emission reduction targets. The incumbent government arranged its remaining members (many had quit expecting electoral wipeout) behind Morrison, who warned of economic ruin under the opposition’s climate plan.
But polling showed a narrow race close to the election, and the Liberal party was returned to power.
No one was more surprised than Morrison himself. “I’ve always believed in miracles,” he concluded.
Many, un-supernatural factors can explain this result: an unpopular opposition leader with an expansive reform agenda.
Moreover, the election was decided in the coal-rich electorates of regional Queensland and the resources state of Western Australia. Voters in Queensland resented the caravan of climate campaigners from southern cities, who traveled through their towns protesting against the Adani coal mine, which promised thousands of jobs to the region.
The election became a contest between regional and urban, between past and future. And between the status quo and the unknown.
“As one of the world’s top fossil fuel exporters, we are straddling the barbed wire fence. On one side climate risks and opportunities in cleaner technologies, but on the other side deeply entrenched interests, attitudes, and simple human inertia,” Connor says.
Less easy to understand is why Australia’s identity as a major coal exporter is so inextricably linked to its inability to undergo an energy transition at home. The vast majority of emissions from Australian coal are counted overseas. Hypothetically, Australia could decouple its own economy from fossil fuels without impacting exports.
But neither side of politics will quickly forget that Morrison managed to make fear of the costs of climate action more terrifying than the reality of climate change itself.
There has always been a tussle in the LNP between moderates and a small band of climate deniers. But the moderates have a problem: weaponizing climate change keeps winning elections.
Will the fires be a catalyst for change?
Australia’s fires have reignited the debate over this deadlock.
“You can no longer argue that it’s just inner city ‘woke’ people who care about climate change,” says Will Grant, a senior lecturer in science communication at the Australian National Center for the Public Awareness of Science.
But he says the complexity of the catastrophe makes it possible for people to pick the information — some of which is deliberate misinformation from climate deniers — which fits their belief system.
“An event like this may be catalyzing, but a lot of people will interpret these bushfires through their existing biases and beliefs about whether climate change is happening or not.”
Still, he says, “It might be a moment. Maybe this is the thing where the moderates in the Liberal party start saying, ‘shut up’ to the far-right anti-climate groups.”
Connor agrees.
“I do hope we can use what we’ve seen,” he says, “and that we hear more conservative voices drawing a direct link between emissions and this crisis.”
One of those voices is a woman who served as deputy to both Turnbull and Abbott, before quitting politics at the last election. Former Foreign Minister Julie Bishop was blunt when interviewed about the fires on breakfast television this week, saying, “Australia is a highly developed country. ... If a country like Australia fails to show leadership (on climate change), we can hardly blame other nations for likewise not showing leadership in this area.”
Polls show overwhelming support for decisive climate action
Australia’s “leadership” in the most recent COP25 in Madrid involved creative carbon accounting, raising a contentious argument that it should be able to use carryover credits from the Kyoto agreement, to meet its Paris targets.
“Morrison deliberately misquoted data at the UN, to say we are reducing emissions when the data says that we are not ... that we are going to achieve our Paris commitments ‘in a canter’ when you can only do that if carry over all your Kyoto credits,” says John Hewson, who led the federal Liberal party from 1990 to 1994 and now works with the Crawford School of Public Policy in Canberra. “That’s like some kid trying to count the six gold stars they got at the end of Primary School for their university admission. It’s nonsense.”
Hewson believes more transparency from elected representatives on the issue of climate action is key. “Government is responding to a handful of people within the coalition, with the support of the Murdoch press, to defend the indefensible.
“I’d like to see every individual member of parliament declare their position and be responsible to their constituents. Whatever poll you want to look at, you get overwhelming support for decisive action and it’s getting stronger.”
State governments are acutely aware of this, and have almost uniform net-zero 2050 targets, including the conservative-ruled states of South Australia and New South Wales.
In the absence of a government agenda, the private sector is moving toward lowering emissions
Blessed with boundless renewable resources and sitting on the doorstep of Asia, Australia is poised to benefit from an energy transition. And in the absence of a government agenda, the market is evolving quickly.
Large-scale private investment in renewables is underway, with Australia’s per capita renewable energy growing at a rate 10 times the world average. In the north, a number of mega-projects are in development, including one to export solar energy via subsea cable to Asia. A race is underway to establish “green hydrogen” — an alternative fuel produced using only renewable energy — as a viable export commodity.
Industry is also agitating for policy certainty. Heavy emitters including Rio Tinto, BHP, and Australia’s largest oil and gas companies Santos and Woodside have called for a price on carbon. BHP has set a net-zero target for 2050.
“There is a sense of [industry] getting on with it and not being reliant on government,” said Connor. “We’re not just talking about policy, we’re talking about pressure from investors, prudential regulators, shareholders and consumers, so those forces are very actively at play whilst public policy is moving slowly. I hope that at least one positive that will come out of this horror is that we can move to embrace the opportunities, as well as better managing the risk of the future that is facing us.”
So, when the smoke clears, will the Australian government end its climate inertia?
“I do think 2020 is a year of opportunity,” Connor says. “Government has said it’s committed to completing a long-term strategy this year. We are encouraged under the Paris agreement to have a mid-century emissions reduction strategy, and there will be incredible scrutiny on that.”
Perhaps we should all believe in miracles.
Michelle Crowther is an Australian journalist based in Perth. She has worked in emissions reduction with the resources sector and holds a master’s degree in strategic communication focusing on climate change.


vox--2020-01-11--The Trump administration wants the Supreme Court to not rule on Obamacare until after the 2020 elect

The Trump administration wants the Supreme Court to not rule on Obamacare until after the 2020 election

During the 2016 election , President Donald Trump promised to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act .
Congressional Republicans tried to make good on this promise in 2017 , before a Senate vote effectively killed the effort .
In the wake of that failed attempt , Republican states challenged the law ’ s constitutionality in court , an effort encouraged and aided by the Trump administration .
But with 2020 elections looming , the Trump administration and state-level Republicans have seemingly lost their appetites for slashing and burning the landmark health care legislation .
In briefs filed Friday to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seeks to overturn the law in its entirety , the US Department of Justice and a separate group of Republican state attorneys general both asked the court not to take on the case this year .
The case carries heavy implications for the US health care system , and for the 2020 elections as well .
Should the Republican plaintiffs succeed in getting the ACA struck down , the Urban Institute estimates that about 20 million people in the US will lose their health insurance .
And the result of a Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic and Republican pitches to voters ahead of November ’ s elections .
The case — Texas v. United States — began in 2018 , when Texas ( joined by a group of Republican-led states ) challenged Obamacare ’ s constitutionality in federal court , specifically attacking a 2017 update to the ACA which wiped out the individual mandate .
Vox ’ s Ian Milhiser explained the plaintiffs ’ argument : The Texas plaintiffs challenge part of a law that literally does nothing .
It requires people who do not have health insurance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one has standing to challenge the zeroed-out mandate .
The plaintiffs claim they get around this problem by pointing to the way the statutory language laying out the individual mandate is structured .
Briefly , it ’ s divided into several subsections .
The first says that most individuals “ shall ” carry health insurance , the second says that people who fail to buy insurance will pay a tax penalty , and the third sets the amount of that penalty — which , again , is now zero dollars .
Though the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing , the plaintiffs claim that they are still bound by the language saying that they “ shall ” carry insurance — and therefore are injured by a law that commands them to do something they don ’ t want to do .
Judge Reed O ’ Connor , a North Texas-based federal judge who has ruled in several key conservative cases over recent years , found in favor of the plaintiffs in 2018 , ostensibly striking down the ACA , pending appeals .
An appeals process did indeed move forward , with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Circuit agreeing last December that the individual mandate is unconstitutional , but deciding that the case must be sent back to O ’ Connor for further consideration .
While Trump ’ s DOJ has sided with the plaintiffs in the case , several Democratic-controlled states and the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives have stepped in to defend the law in court .
Following the decision in the court of appeals , Democratic attorneys petitioned the Supreme Court to take up the case on an expedited basis .
It was to this petition that Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to wait to take up the case .
It may seem odd that Democrats would want a Supreme Court that could well rule to end Obamacare to do so sooner rather than later , and that Republicans would ask it to hold off doing so .
But in the context of the 2020 elections , the stances of each party begin to make more sense .
Health care looms large again in the 2020 elections Studies have shown that Americans — including Republicans — like the benefits the ACA has given them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Foundation study found that 80 percent of Republicans like the ACA ’ s provision that lowers the cost of prescription drugs for those on Medicare , and that 58 percent of Republicans like that it stopped insurance companies from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions .
Overall , the foundation found that 52 percent of Americans approved of the ACA as of November 2019 , and that 56 percent feared they , or someone they knew , would lose coverage if the Supreme Court overturned the law .
Essentially , while the ACA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his allies in Congress , the law itself is fairly popular , and at least some of its provisions are overwhelmingly popular .
This makes removing it a somewhat dangerous proposition for Republicans , particularly those in Congress that rely on broad bases of support to retain their seats .
In the 2018 midterm elections , Democrats worked to exploit the tension between the public ’ s view of the ACA and GOP lawmakers ’ , making healthcare a key issue — a strategy seen as being crucial to the Democrats ’ eventual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Thanks to Texas v. United States , Democrats see an opening for a similar strategy in 2020 .
If the Supreme Court were to uphold the ACA , Democrats would be able to campaign as the party that defended Obamacare .
If it were to be overturned , then Democrats would cast the GOP as the party that dumped 20 million people off their health insurance in an election year .
It is in Republicans ’ s best interests to avoid that lose-lose scenario , and therefore they have asked the court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first place .
“ The lawfulness of the act is undoubtedly a matter of the utmost national importance , but the current petitions do not justify immediate , emergency review by the court , ” said the brief filed by the attorney general of Texas and officials in 17 other states .
The Supreme Court has not yet signaled how it will proceed .
It would take just four justices to agree to take the case , and all five of the justices who ruled to uphold the law the last time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ question at the court are still on the bench .

During the 2016 election, Donald Trump promised to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. Congressional Republicans tried to make good on this promise in 2017, before a Senate vote effectively killed the effort. In the wake of that failed attempt, Republican states challenged the law’s constitutionality in court, an effort encouraged and aided by the Trump administration.
But with 2020 elections looming, the Trump administration and state-level Republicans have seemingly lost their appetites for slashing and burning the landmark health care legislation.
In briefs filed Friday to the Supreme Court in a lawsuit that seeks to overturn the law in its entirety, the US Department of Justice and a separate group of Republican state attorneys general both asked the court not to take on the case this year.
The case carries heavy implications for the US health care system, and for the 2020 elections as well. Should the Republican plaintiffs succeed in getting the ACA struck down, the Urban Institute estimates that about 20 million people in the US will lose their health insurance. And the result of a Supreme Court ruling could have stark effects on both Democratic and Republican pitches to voters ahead of November’s elections.
The case — Texas v. United States — began in 2018, when Texas (joined by a group of Republican-led states) challenged Obamacare’s constitutionality in federal court, specifically attacking a 2017 update to the ACA which wiped out the individual mandate. Vox’s Ian Milhiser explained the plaintiffs’ argument:
The Texas plaintiffs challenge part of a law that literally does nothing. It requires people who do not have health insurance to pay zero dollars. So no one has standing to challenge the zeroed-out mandate. The plaintiffs claim they get around this problem by pointing to the way the statutory language laying out the individual mandate is structured. Briefly, it’s divided into several subsections. The first says that most individuals “shall” carry health insurance, the second says that people who fail to buy insurance will pay a tax penalty, and the third sets the amount of that penalty — which, again, is now zero dollars. Though the penalty for not having insurance is absolutely nothing, the plaintiffs claim that they are still bound by the language saying that they “shall” carry insurance — and therefore are injured by a law that commands them to do something they don’t want to do.
Judge Reed O’Connor, a North Texas-based federal judge who has ruled in several key conservative cases over recent years, found in favor of the plaintiffs in 2018, ostensibly striking down the ACA, pending appeals. An appeals process did indeed move forward, with the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreeing last December that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, but deciding that the case must be sent back to O’Connor for further consideration.
While Trump’s DOJ has sided with the plaintiffs in the case, several Democratic-controlled states and the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives have stepped in to defend the law in court. Following the decision in the court of appeals, Democratic attorneys petitioned the Supreme Court to take up the case on an expedited basis. It was to this petition that Republicans responded on Friday, asking the justices to wait to take up the case.
It may seem odd that Democrats would want a Supreme Court that could well rule to end Obamacare to do so sooner rather than later, and that Republicans would ask it to hold off doing so. But in the context of the 2020 elections, the stances of each party begin to make more sense.
Health care looms large again in the 2020 elections
Studies have shown that Americans — including Republicans — like the benefits the ACA has given them. For example, a 2018 Kaiser Family Foundation study found that 80 percent of Republicans like the ACA’s provision that lowers the cost of prescription drugs for those on Medicare, and that 58 percent of Republicans like that it stopped insurance companies from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions.
Overall, the foundation found that 52 percent of Americans approved of the ACA as of November 2019, and that 56 percent feared they, or someone they knew, would lose coverage if the Supreme Court overturned the law.
Essentially, while the ACA is commonly targeted by the president and his allies in Congress, the law itself is fairly popular, and at least some of its provisions are overwhelmingly popular.
This makes removing it a somewhat dangerous proposition for Republicans, particularly those in Congress that rely on broad bases of support to retain their seats. In the 2018 midterm elections, Democrats worked to exploit the tension between the public’s view of the ACA and GOP lawmakers’, making healthcare a key issue — a strategy seen as being crucial to the Democrats’ eventual victory in retaking the House of Representatives.
Thanks to Texas v. United States, Democrats see an opening for a similar strategy in 2020. If the Supreme Court were to uphold the ACA, Democrats would be able to campaign as the party that defended Obamacare. If it were to be overturned, then Democrats would cast the GOP as the party that dumped 20 million people off their health insurance in an election year.
It is in Republicans’s best interests to avoid that lose-lose scenario, and therefore they have asked the court not to take up the case in the first place.
“The lawfulness of the act is undoubtedly a matter of the utmost national importance, but the current petitions do not justify immediate, emergency review by the court,” said the brief filed by the attorney general of Texas and officials in 17 other states.
The Supreme Court has not yet signaled how it will proceed. It would take just four justices to agree to take the case, and all five of the justices who ruled to uphold the law the last time the ACA’s constitutionality was in question at the court are still on the bench.