Connect with us

The Dictatorship

Trump’s IVF announcement was the final blow to one of his wildest campaign promises

Published

on

Trump’s IVF announcement was the final blow to one of his wildest campaign promises

During the 2024 presidential campaignPresident Donald Trump claimed he would make in vitro fertilization free for people in the U.S. His official plan, laid out Thursday, should be a wake-up call for anyone who still believed he’d follow through. Instead, the president’s plan primarily focuses on somewhat reducing the cost of IVF — at the same time that the administration is pursuing policies that will increase what people pay for health insurance.

Starting in August 2024 — only after Kamala Harris became the Democratic nominee — Trump began claiming on the campaign trail that he would make IVF free if he won. “Under the Trump administration, we are going to be paying for that treatment,” he told NBC News. At a Michigan event a day later, he claimed: “Your government will pay for — or your insurance company will be mandated to pay for — all costs associated with IVF treatment.”

Any cost savings from IVF drugs could be eaten up by increasing monthly premiums.

Once in office, Trump signed an executive order in February directing aides to submit within 90 days “a list of policy recommendations on protecting IVF access and aggressively reducing out-of-pocket and health plan costs for IVF treatment.” The 90-day deadline came and went. In August, officials admitted to The Washington Post that the administration had no plans to require insurance coverage of IVF but that it would work to lower costs.

On Thursday, the White House announced that the administration will issue guidance to encourage more employers to cover IVF and that it had negotiated with one drug manufacturer and two specialty pharmaciesCVS Specialty and Express Scripts, to lower costs of prescription fertility drugs used in IVF.

To be clear, the guidance does not make insurers cover IVF. Instead, as Sen. Elizabeth Warren put itthe White House’s idea is to “politely ask companies to add IVF coverage out of the goodness of their own hearts — with zero federal investment and no requirement for them to follow through.” And while 60% of people under 65 have insurance through their jobs, that leaves the remaining 40% who either have public coverage, buy their own plans or go without insurance.

And while getting lower prices for some IVF medications is certainly a good thing, it won’t make the treatment affordable for most people who pay out of pocket for fertility services. That’s because drugs are not the main source of IVF costs, which can run about $15,000 to $20,000 per cycle and include lab visits, genetic testing and an embryo transfer procedure. Per the White House’s own fact sheet, the prescription drugs needed to complete the process make up about 20% of that cost. The administration suggested that, with new discounts, people could save up to $2,200 on the drugs per cyclebut that would still leave people with bills of more than $10,000.

“The Federal government has the power to meaningfully improve IVF access, but the recommendations it announced [Thursday] are not nearly enough,” said Center for Reproductive Rights President Nancy Northup in a statement. Sean Tipton, chief advocacy and policy officer at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, told The New York Times: “I think it is a whole lot less than he promised in the campaign.”

To make matters worse, Trump announced this plan on Day 16 of a government shutdown, in which a central issue is Republicans’ refusal to extend enhanced subsidies for people who buy their own insurance on the Obamacare marketplace. That means any cost savings from IVF drugs could be eaten up by increasing monthly premiums — if people can afford to purchase health insurance at all.

Even though Trump’s plan doesn’t mandate IVF coverage, anti-abortion leaders were not pleased.

And insurance costs are expected to increase even for people with other kinds of health plans, thanks to the GOP budget law that passed this summer. The bill is designed to kick millions of people off Medicaid, which will result in hospitals taking on more “uncompensated care.” Health policy experts warn that hospitals will raise their rates as a result, and that will increase costs for everyone across the country.

If Trump wanted to require insurers to cover IVF, he could back a bill sponsored by Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., a combat veteran who welcomed two children through IVF. Her Right to IVF Act would create a right to access fertility services, including IVF, and would require employer-sponsored plans and public insurance including Medicaid and military TRICARE plans to cover the treatments. Republicans blocked Duckworth’s bill twice in 2024.

Instead, Thursday’s announcement was another example of Trump trying to appease voters who supported him on a pledge to lower costs while also attempting to mollify religious conservatives who strongly oppose abortion and IVF. But even though Trump’s plan doesn’t mandate coverage, anti-abortion leaders were not pleased. Many in that movement oppose IVF because they believe life begins at fertilization and the treatment involves the creation of multiple embryos, genetic testing and routine destruction and storage.

Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life, wrote on social media“I’m thankful there’s no new healthcare mandate forcing coverage for the destructive IVF industry, but IVF, as it’s practiced, still destroys countless humans in the embryonic stage.” Hawkins said it was the “second disappointment in two weeks from his team,” referring to the FDA’s approval of a new generic version of the abortion drug mifepristone. Live Action founder Lila Rose was more critical, claiming after Trump’s announcement that “IVF kills more babies than abortion — millions of embryos are frozen, discarded, or destroyed.”

At a press conference Thursday, Trump claimed to be unaware of anti-abortion opposition to IVF. “I’m just looking to do something because, you know, pro-life,” he said. “I think this is very pro-life. You can’t get more pro-life than this.”

It’s worth remembering that Trump only took up the IVF issue during the 2024 campaign after the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that IVF embryos can be considered children for the purposes of wrongful death lawsuits. Trump had repeatedly bragged about nominating three of the Supreme Court justices who helped overturn Roe v. Wade, but that ruling allowed states and judges (like in Alabama) to define life as beginning at fertilizationlimiting access to fertility treatments. Trump didn’t want to be associated with those consequences, so he criticized the ruling — and once Harris entered the race, he made his wild promises. Some voters believed him.

And now here we are with a plan that falls far short of his pledges, barely makes a dent in affordability, and has still angered conservatives. As is so often the case with Trump, everyone loses while he claims victory.

SUSPAN goals

Susan Rinkunas is an independent journalist and co-founder of Autonomy News. Her work has appeared in Jezebel, The New Republic, The Guardian, Slate, The Nation and more.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

No plan B: Trump is flailing to find an off-ramp for the Iran war

Published

on

This is an adapted excerpt from the March 24 episode of “All In with Chris Hayes.”

Donald Trump’s war on Iran is in its fourth week. Gas prices are up $1 a gallon in much of the country. Stocks continue to fall on fears of global supply shortages.

The death toll is growing. Thirteen American service members have lost their livesand more than 1,200 Iranians have been killed, along with upward of 1,000 people in Lebanonmore than 150 in the surrounding Gulf states and 17 Israelis. That’s not accounting for the millions who are displaced and the thousands who have been injured, including hundreds of U.S. troops.

But according to the president who launched the war, it’s all over.

It is becoming increasingly clear that Trump expected a fast and easy win.

“We’ve won this. This war has been won,” he told reporters Tuesday in the Oval Office. “The only one that likes to keep it going is the fake news.”

However, during those same remarks, Trump was all over the place — talking about an epic victory, ongoing peace negotiations and personal gifts.

It was all completely counter to his posture over the weekend, when he threatened to “obliterate” Iranian civilian power plants — essentially teasing a war crime — if Iran did not stop blocking oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuzsomething Iran was not doing before Trump attacked them.

But now, he has supposedly pressed pause on that bombing plan for five days because, he said, the negotiations are going well.

When he first announced that in a social media post Monday, it sent oil prices down 10% and boosted stocks.

However, those markets reversed themselves Tuesday after the Iranians said they have not engaged in any serious high-level negotiations with the Americans, and they claimed Trump was making things up to help oil prices. The Israelis said the same thing. (That’s not to say you should take Iran’s word for it, or Israel’s, but you shouldn’t take the White House’s word, either.)

It is becoming increasingly clear that Trump expected a fast and easy win. He had no plan B, and now he is flailing to find some kind of fallback position.

On Monday, sources from the administration told Politico that they have their eyes on a future U.S.-backed leader of Iran: Mohammad ⁠Bagher Ghalibaf, speaker of the Iranian parliament.

“He’s a hot option,” one unnamed U.S. source — who seems to really wants a deal — told Blue Light News. “He’s one of the highest. … But we got to test them, and we can’t rush into it.”

But on Tuesday, that “hot option” trolled Trump for what he called a “jawboning campaign” to stabilize oil prices. In a social media postGhalibaf wrote: “[L]et’s see if they can turn that into ‘actual fuel’ at the pump — or maybe even print gas molecules!”

Call it the fog of Trumpian war: a million contradictory messages flying around, constantly wildly pinging bits of news that don’t make sense together.

Right now, we have reports that Trump’s negotiators, including his envoy Steve Witkoff and Vice President JD Vance, are traveling to Pakistan for informal talks with an Iranian official.

At the same time, unnamed U.S. officials have told The New York Times that the Saudi crown prince is pushing Trump to continue the war until Iran’s government collapses — something the Saudis publicly deny.

In fact, The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Saudi officials are holding talks in Riyadh with their Arab counterparts to find a diplomatic off-ramp from the war.

On Tuesday evening, U.S. officials said the Pentagon was poised to deploy 3,000 troops of the 82nd Airborne Division to the Middle East. That is in addition to two Marine expeditionary units on their way to the region and the 50,000 U.S. troops already stationed there.

Also on Tuesday, Iranian-backed militias in Iraq are claiming that U.S. strikes there killed 30 of their members.

But, according to Trump, the peace talks are going great, right?

All eyes everywhere have been on the Strait of Hormuz, where Iran responded to the U.S. attack by striking oil tankers and shutting down 20% of the world’s supply of oil and liquefied natural gas. It is now essentially running a toll operation in the strait.

Some countries, such as China, Japan and India, are negotiating deals with Iran to get its oil out. Which is to say, Iran is shipping more oil and making more money than it was under the U.S. sanctions in place before Trump attacked it.

It’s clear the president sees what’s happening, so now he is trying to share control of the strait with Iran. Trump told reporters the strait would be “jointly controlled” by “maybe” him and “the next ayatollah.”

The administration really thought this was going to be another Venezuela. They told themselves that, and they were egged on to believe it by the staunchest advocates of the war, such as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Sen. Lindsey GrahamR-S.C.

But in Iran, a decapitation strike did not lead to mass uprisings. It did not lead to regime change. It led to the situation in which Iran’s regime is intact, even if militarily degraded, and they now have explicit control of the Strait of Hormuz — a huge pressure point.

It really looks like the U.S. is backed into a corner: It can sue for peace because of the oil tanker situation, but they do not have much leverage, or it can escalate the war. That may be why we’re seeing all these contradictory developments.

In Iran, a decapitation strike did not lead to mass uprisings. It did not lead to regime change. It led to the situation in which Iran’s regime is intact.

Trump issued an ultimatum he had to walk back from because he said there were deep peace negotiations, which then later proved to be completely fabricated.

Now, more U.S. troops are set to be deployed for a possible ground invasion in the Middle East, despite reports that the U.S. has supposedly sent a 15-point plan to Iran through Pakistan to end the war.

It almost looks as if Trump is trying to wave the peace card to keep a lid on oil futures and financial marketsjust long enough to have ground troops in position — and just in time for the markets to close for the weekend on Friday, when Trump’s “pause” on bombing Iranian power plants is set to end.

That could be the plan Trump now settles on, weeks into a deadly war where there was obviously, very clearly, no real plan at all.

Allison Detzel contributed.

Chris Hayes hosts “All In with Chris Hayes” at 8 p.m. ET Tuesday through Friday on MS NOW. He is the editor-at-large at The Nation. A former fellow at Harvard University’s Edmond J. Safra Foundation Center for Ethics, Hayes was a Bernard Schwartz Fellow at the New America Foundation. His latest book is “The Sirens’ Call: How Attention Became the World’s Most Endangered Resource” (Penguin Press).

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Jury finds Meta and YouTube liable in landmark social media trial, awards $6 million

Published

on

Jury finds Meta and YouTube liable in landmark social media trial, awards $6 million

A California state jury found Meta and YouTube liable in a landmark social media case on Wednesday, awarding $3 million in compensatory damages to a plaintiff who brought the case and putting the Instagram maker’s liability at 70% and the Google company’s at 30%.

The jurors later decided to award a total of $3 million in punitive damages, with Meta to pay $2.1 million and YouTube $900,000. The verdict was reached on the jury’s ninth day of deliberation.

A 2023 complaint accused social media companies of fueling an unprecedented mental health crisis for American children through “addictive and dangerous” products. Plaintiffs accused the companies of deliberately tweaking their products to exploit kids’ undeveloped brains to “create compulsive use of their apps.”

The civil case was brought by several plaintiffs against several companies, but this state court trial, which featured testimonyfrom Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, involved a plaintiff described by her initials as “K.G.M.” in court papers against Instagram and YouTube.

In the 2023 complaint, K.G.M. said she was a 17-year-old in California who started using social media at a much younger age, though her mother told her not to and used third-party software to try to prevent the daughter’s social media use. The complaint alleged that the corporate defendants designed their products in ways that let kids evade parental controls and that the companies knew, or should’ve known, that K.G.M. was a minor.

The plaintiff alleged that Instagram’s and other companies’ addictive designs led her to develop “a compulsion to engage with those products nonstop” and to see “harmful and depressive content, urging K.G.M. to commit acts of self-harm, as well as harmful social comparison and body image.”

She alleged that she suffered bullying, depression, anxiety and body dysmorphia through Instagram and that Meta did nothing in response to a report about it. “Meta allowed the predatory user to continue harming minor Plaintiff K.G.M., including through the use of explicit images of a minor child,” the complaint said, adding that the company’s “defective reporting mechanisms and/or deliberate failure to act caused emotional and mental health harms to K.G.M. in addition to and separate from any third-party conduct.”

The companies, which have denied wrongdoingsaid Wednesday that they plan to appeal.

Jillian Frankel contributed from Los Angeles.

Subscribe to theDeadline: Legal Newsletterfor expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration’s legal cases.

Jordan Rubin is the Deadline: Legal Blog writer. He was a prosecutor for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and is the author of “Bizarro,” a book about the secret war on synthetic drugs. Before he joined MS NOW, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Democrat vows to turn ‘Epstein files into Epstein trials’ after release of new depositions

Published

on

Democrat vows to turn ‘Epstein files into Epstein trials’ after release of new depositions

The House Oversight Committee on Tuesday released hours of deposition footage from its interviews with two former close associates of Jeffrey Epsteinattorney Darren Indyke and accountant Richard Kahn. Rep. Melanie Stansbury, D-N.M., a member of the committee, joined “The Weeknight” to discuss the interviews and the efforts to hold any accomplices of the late sex offender accountable.

“What is remarkable is that even in death, his closest associates and co-conspirators are still covering for him,” Stansbury said.

During their depositions, both Indyke and Kahn insisted they had no knowledge of Epstein’s illegal behavior. The New Mexico Democrat cast doubt on those claims, taking particular issue with Indyke’s testimony, during which she said it was possible that Epstein’s former attorney may have “perjured himself.”

“He claimed that he had no knowledge of all of these nefarious activities, and yet he literally has spent decades of his life at the center of this controversy,” she said. “I’m sorry, I’m not buying it.”

Stansbury told MS NOW she believed it was important for the public to understand that both Indyke and Kahn “stand to make tens of millions of dollars off of their execution” of Epstein’s will. She added that “the way the will is structured, there is a survivor fund, and at the end of that, they get to basically keep whatever is left over.”

“We don’t know what was written into whatever contracts, but it’s clear that they have a financial interest,” she said.

Stansbury said the pair’s depositions should be part of a greater effort from lawmakers and law enforcement across the country to pursue accountability for Epstein’s victims, even after his death. She highlighted how her home state, New Mexico, was doing just that.

“That is why we are going to continue to seek justice in this case, and it’s why in New Mexico, not only did we pass a truth commission, but one of the updates that we want to tell people about is that we plan to pursue convictions against individuals who were implicated in these crimes who were not prosecuted by the federal government,” she said. “We want to turn these Epstein files into Epstein trials — and that’s exactly what we plan to do.”

You can watch Stansbury’s full interview in the clip at the top of the page.

Allison Detzel is an editor/producer for MS NOW. She was previously a segment producer for “AYMAN” and “The Mehdi Hasan Show.”

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending