Amanda Teuscher

Amanda Teuscher is The American Prospect's managing editor.

Recent Articles

The Tax Act’s Unfinished Business

The wealthiest Americans were already pretty happy with the 2017 Republican Tax Act. It bequeaths corporations with $1.7 trillion in tax cuts at the expense of funding for social programs, and 83 percent of the law’s benefits will go to the top 1 percent by 2027, when most of the individual income changes will have expired.

But greed works in not-so-mysterious ways, and it seems these gifts weren’t enough. During the G20 summit earlier this month in Argentina, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told The New York Times that the Trump administration was considering dodging Congress to reduce capital gains taxes through regulation. Larry Kudlow, Donald Trump’s top economic adviser, has long advocated indexing capital gains to inflation, meaning that when an investor sells an asset, the initial price they paid for it would be adjusted for inflation so that the amount they’re taxed on (how much they earned when they sold it) would be lower.

The possible Treasury action, reported by the Times on Monday, is likely illegal. But as the Prospect outlined in its summer issue, which was devoted entirely to the 2017 Tax Act, Trump and his allies may stop at nothing to slash taxes for the wealthy. Even in the face of strong opposition, Republicans and the administration were determined to get their bill through, despite the fact that the tax cuts were demonstrably unpopular among voters. (The articles in that issue cover everything from who benefits the most, to how Democrats should respond, to debunking the claims of those promoting the law.)

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump had promised to close the carried interest loophole that allows hedge fund managers to pay the lower capital gains rate on the money they make from an investment, but the loophole survived the 2017 bill and doesn’t seem likely to be revisited in the so-called Tax Reform 2.0 proposals currently being floated by Republicans on Capitol Hill.

How Democratic Socialists Helped Propel Abortion Funds to Record Fundraising Levels

And focused on places—like Mississippi—where funding for abortions is hard to find

AP Photo/Rogelio V. Solis Clinic escorts Stacey Spiehler and Sarah Roberts walk back to their posts outside the Jackson Women's Health Organization clinic in Jackson, Mississippi. I t was an ambitious goal. After raking in more than $1.7 million last year during the post-inauguration progressive surge, the National Network of Abortion Funds (NNAF) had decided to shoot for $2 million in this year’s annual Bowl-a-Thon fundraiser. The NNAF, which is made up of about 70 member organizations that provide direct funding and logistical support to women seeking abortions, had a week and half before the April 30 fundraising deadline. The national tally was less than $900,000, and it looked as though what activists had termed the “Trump Bump” of 2017 may have already reached its peak. “Complacency is always something that the pro-choice movement is fighting against,” Lindsay Rodriguez, NNAF’s communications and digital organizing manager and Bowl-a-Thon coordinator, said at the time. “People...

The Abortion Generation Gap

A new poll from PRRI has found wide generational gaps on issues of abortion, reproductive health, and sexual assault.

“As this younger generation continues to flex its political muscles—as we saw in the response to the Parkland shooting—they could also reshape the national conversation on women’s health issues,” said PRRI CEO Robert P. Jones in a statement.

The poll, released today, found that nearly all Americans believe that health insurance plans, both private and government-provided, should cover birth control and testing for sexually transmitted infections. Fewer than half of those surveyed, however, believe abortion should be covered under most health-care plans. Though women were generally more in favor of abortion access and wider health-care coverage, and were more likely to prioritize the issue when deciding how to vote, the bigger gaps on questions of abortion were those of age, as well as education level and political affiliation.

Of people aged 18 to 29, 65 percent said that abortion should be legal in all or most cases. And while most Americans’ views on legality have remained relatively unchanged over the past decade, younger Americans were more likely to say their views on abortion have changed in recent years—overwhelmingly to a position of greater support for abortion rights, perhaps mirroring the broad leftward shift of the millennial generation.

The poll also uncovered a wide generation gap on perceptions of how difficult abortions are to obtain. Despite the fact that restrictive state policies have closed clinics across the country, sometimes forcing women to travel days or across state lines to get the procedure, nearly half of Americans said that obtaining an abortion in their community was not that difficult. But here, too, age was a stronger predictor of perceptions of availability than even gender or partisan affiliation. Nearly half (49 percent) of young people thought that local abortions were at least somewhat difficult to obtain, compared with just 26 percent of people over the age of 65. And while more than two-thirds (69 percent) of young people believe there should be abortion providers in their community, only 46 percent of seniors felt the same.

While the differences between millennials and seniors are the most glaring, the survey also highlighted different levels of support for abortion rights by race and religion, with black Americans generally more supportive and white evangelicals often, predictably, an outlier in their opposition. A pronounced gender divide also exists in perceptions of sexual assault and harassment cases. While the majority of Americans believe unreported or disbelieved cases to be a bigger problem than the specter of false accusations, nearly a third of men think that false accusations are more worrisome, especially Republican men (41 percent).

“Given this,” PRRI Director of Strategic Engagement Carolyn Davis said in a statement, “the [Republican] party is not likely to prioritize effectively combating sexual harassment or assault unless the women of the party push the GOP to action.”

Whether that is likely remains a mystery, but it’s a safe bet that it will be a while before the Republican Party catches up to the majority of the country—and especially to the younger generation—if it catches up at all.

Maryland Bills Mandate Better Health Care for Pregnant Inmates

Last week, the Maryland General Assembly approved a bill that would require all state correctional facilities to have written medical-care policies for incarcerated pregnant women—the first of its kind in the country, according to NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland.

Under the new legislation, which goes into effect in October, all facilities must submit to a legislative commission—and, importantly, to incarcerated patients—a written policy regarding things like prenatal care, abortion access, and labor and delivery. Incarcerated women are often afraid to ask for needed care like pregnancy testing or emergency miscarriage management, says Diana Philip, the executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland, or they might not even be aware of their rights. The requirement of a written policy clarifies for both patients and prison employees what kind of care pregnant inmates are entitled to receive. “I think one of the great things about this bill is that the person who is pregnant will be handed that policy,” Philip told the Prospect.

The state legislature also passed a bill that would provide inmates with free menstrual hygiene products. “Incarcerated women have limited resources and are often forced to deal with poor conditions,” Philip said in a statement. While she acknowledges that there remains the challenge of monitoring facilities’ adherence to policies, “[b]oth of these bills take a step in the right direction to ensure their basic needs are met.”

As states across the nation try to handle their growing female prison populations, reproductive-rights advocates have been shining a light on the treatment of detained and incarcerated women who are pregnant. According to New York magazine, six states (Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, South Carolina, and Utah) still allow the shackling of female inmates while they’re in labor, a practice that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says “may not only compromise health care but is demeaning and rarely necessary.” North Carolina recently revised its policy on restraints, prohibiting the use of leg or waist restraints when the inmate is in labor, and Connecticut lawmakers have introduced a bill that would bar such restraints during pregnancy or the postpartum period, and prohibit the use of any restraints during labor. The Connecticut bill would also require the state to provide incarcerated women with menstrual hygiene products free of charge.

Pregnant women in immigration detention have also struggled with lack of quality medical care, their numbers having risen since the Trump administration’s decision in December to reverse the federal policy of releasing pregnant women from custody. Immigrant-rights and reproductive-rights groups have expressed concern about inadequate medical care, and advocates have sounded the alarm about Scott Lloyd, the director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, who has repeatedly attempted to prevent undocumented pregnant teenagers from seeking abortions.

Senate Democrats Warn Mitch McConnell: Don’t Try to Weaken the ADA

On Thursday, 42 Senate Democrats joined Senator Tammy Duckworth of Illinois to pledge to block a vote on the ADA Education and Reform Act (H.R. 620), a House bill that would gut the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act by weakening enforcement provisions that ensure accessibility in public accommodations.

In a signed letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, the Democrats noted that the supposed purpose of H.R. 620—to prevent “drive-by” lawsuits—is not actually addressed by the bill, since the ADA does not permit monetary relief in the form of damages or settlements. Instead, H.R. 620 gives businesses 120 days to make “substantial progress” toward complying with the law, and only after the business has received written notice from an affected person with a disability. When the ADA was passed, as the letter says, “[t]he expectation was that businesses would make themselves accessible before people with disabilities showed up … rather than waiting until receiving a notice that people with disabilities have been excluded before starting to think about complying with the law.”

Duckworth, who lost her legs while serving in Iraq, wrote a Washington Post op-ed in October 2017 condemning H.R. 620, and spoke against it on the House floor in February, just before it passed that chamber on mostly party lines. Proponents of H.R. 620 include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the retail and hotel industries, which claim that the bill protects businesses from complaints over minor ADA infractions. “We reject in the strongest terms,” wrote the senators, “the offensive suggestion by supporters of H.R. 620 that a civil rights violation denying access to a public space could ever be ‘minor.’”

Disability-rights groups have been vocal in their opposition to H.R. 620, which McConnell could bring up for a vote at any time. The letter, signed by 43 Democratic senators (all except Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and Bill Nelson of Florida) signals to McConnell that the coalition has enough votes to filibuster any attempt to bring H.R. 620 to the floor.

Pages