FILE PHOTO: The Supreme Court is seen in Washington, U.S., May 14, 2018. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts
March 19, 2019
By Lawrence Hurley
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Supreme Court on Tuesday endorsed U.S. government authority to detain immigrants awaiting deportation anytime – potentially even years – after they have completed prison terms for criminal convictions, handing President Donald Trump a victory as he pursues hardline immigration policies.
The court ruled 5-4, with its conservative justices in the majority and its liberal justices dissenting, that federal authorities could pick up such immigrants and place them into indefinite detention at any time, not just immediately after they finish their prison sentences.
The ruling, authored by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, leaves open the possibility of individual immigrants challenging the federal law involved in the case on constitutional grounds if they are detained long after they have completed their sentences.
In dissent, liberal Justice Stephen Breyer questioned whether the U.S. Congress when it wrote the law “meant to allow the government to apprehend persons years after their release from prison and hold them indefinitely without a bail hearing.”
The Trump administration had appealed a lower court ruling in the case that favored immigrants, a decision it said would undermine the government’s ability to deport immigrants who have committed crimes. Trump has backed limits on legal and illegal immigrants since taking office in January 2017.
The plaintiffs included two legal U.S. residents involved in separate lawsuits filed in 2013, a Cambodian immigrant named Mony Preap convicted of marijuana possession and a Palestinian immigrant named Bassam Yusuf Khoury convicted of attempting to manufacture a controlled substance.
Under federal immigration law, immigrants convicted of certain offenses are subject to mandatory detention during their deportation process. They can be held indefinitely without a bond hearing after completing their sentences.
(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)
Oyub Titiev, the head of human rights group Memorial in Chechnya, attends his verdict hearing at a court in the town of Shali, in Chechnya, Russia, March 18, 2019. REUTERS/Said Tsarnayev
March 19, 2019
LONDON (Reuters) – British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt condemned the sentence handed out to a prominent human rights activist by a court in Chechnya, calling it “an awful example of Russia suppressing vital work of human rights defenders”.
Oyub Titiev, who runs the office of the Memorial Human Rights Center in the southern Russian region, was sentenced to four years in a penal settlement on Monday after he was found guilty of possessing illegal drugs. His supporters say he was framed, with the drugs planted in his car.
Hunt wrote on Twitter on Tuesday: “Fabricated charges & absurd sentence imposed on Oyub Titiev are intended to silence his work in holding Russian govt to account for human rights abuses in Chechnya – they must #FreeTitiev.”
(Reporting by Michael Holden; editing by Stephen Addison)
FILE PHOTO: Special Counsel Robert Mueller (R) departs after briefing members of the U.S. Senate on his investigation into potential collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., June 21, 2017. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts/File Photo
March 19, 2019
By Sarah N. Lynch
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Special Counsel Robert Mueller, examining potential conspiracy between President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia, is leading the latest in a series of U.S. investigations conducted by prosecutors outside usual Justice Department channels in recent decades.
The release of the findings by previous investigators analogous to Mueller has been handled differently over the years, sometimes with voluminous reports and other times with no reports or with key elements kept under wraps for months and even years.
Mueller is preparing to submit a report to U.S. Attorney General William Barr on his findings, including Russia’s role in the election and whether Trump unlawfully sought to obstruct the probe. Trump has denied collusion and obstruction. Russia has denied election interference.
Barr already is coming under pressure from lawmakers to make the entire document public quickly, though he has wide latitude in what to release.
Here is an explanation of some past high-profile U.S. investigations and how their findings were made public.
The Justice Department named a special prosecutor to investigate the Watergate scandal that eventually forced Republican Richard Nixon in 1974 to become the only U.S. president to resign from office. At the time, no specific regulations or laws governed special prosecutors.
Attorney General Elliot Richardson, as a condition of his Senate confirmation, appointed Archibald Cox as a special prosecutor to examine the 1972 break-in by Republican operatives at Democratic headquarters at the Watergate complex in Washington.
Cox found himself at odds with Nixon over subpoenas to obtain taped White House conversations. Nixon ultimately ordered the firing of Cox, and several top Justice Department officials resigned in protest including Richardson, in an event dubbed the Saturday Night Massacre.
Leon Jaworski, subsequently named as the new Watergate special prosecutor, prepared a report with his findings, known as the “road map,” to assist Congress with possible impeachment proceedings to remove Nixon from office.
The House of Representatives Judiciary Committee used it as a basis for hearings and passed articles of impeachment, though Nixon quit before the full House could act. The “road map” remained under seal by a federal court for 55 years until it was released by federal archivists in 2018.
The job of independent counsel, with broader powers, was created by Congress after the Watergate scandal. In 1986, Lawrence Walsh was named as independent counsel to investigate the Iran-Contra affair involving illegal arms sales to Iran under Republican President Ronald Reagan, with the proceeds diverted to fund rebels in Nicaragua called Contras.
The probe lasted nearly seven years and led to criminal charges against 14 people. The convictions of some prominent officials – Oliver North and John Poindexter – were overturned on appeal. In 1992, Republican President George H.W. Bush pardoned others.
Walsh submitted his final report to a federal court in 1993, which had the power to release it publicly but was not required to do so. Its release was delayed after people named in the report sued to keep it suppressed. A federal appeals court ruled in 1994 that it should be released in the public interest. Walsh then unveiled it at a news conference.
WHITEWATER AND LEWINSKY SCANDALS
Attorney General Janet Reno in 1994 appointed Robert Fiske as a independent counsel to investigate allegations of impropriety by Democratic President Bill Clinton and first lady Hillary Clinton regarding real estate investments in the Whitewater Development Corporation. Fiske’s probe was expanded to include reviewing the death of Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster, which police had ruled a suicide.
Fiske, who was not subject to the independent counsel law because it had temporarily lapsed, publicly released a 200-page interim report in 1994 clearing White House officials of wrongdoing in the Whitewater affair and confirming that Foster’s death was a suicide unrelated to Whitewater.
On that same day, Clinton signed a law reauthorizing the independent counsel statute, which paved the way for a federal court to replace Fiske as independent counsel with Kenneth Starr. Starr turned in a report on Foster’s death to federal courts in 1997, also finding no foul play. It remained under seal for three months before being released.
Starr’s probe expanded into other areas, including a sexual affair between Clinton and White House intern Monica Lewinsky and alleged improprieties in the White House travel office. His expansive 445-page report, containing explicit details on Clinton’s sexual affair, was sent to Congress in 1998. Two days later, lawmakers voted to release it publicly. Its findings triggered an unsuccessful Republican effort to remove Clinton from office through the impeachment process.
Congress let the independent counsel law expire, with some lawmakers believing Starr went too far. The Justice Department in 1999 wrote regulations creating the new job of special counsel, with more limited powers.
FEDERAL RAID AT WACO
Reno in 1999 appointed John Danforth as special counsel to investigate the 1993 federal raid on the Branch Davidian cult compound in Waco, Texas. The FBI used tear gas and a fire broke out, killing more than 70 people including cult leader David Koresh.
Danforth was the first person appointed under the 1999 regulations, the rules that now apply to Mueller. Under those rules, a special counsel must submit a confidential report to the attorney general, who then has discretion to publicly release some or all of it. The attorney general must weigh the public interest. But he also must consider thorny issues such as secrecy of grand jury testimony, protecting classified information, communications with the White House possibly subject to the principle of executive privilege shielding certain information from disclosure, and safeguarding confidential reasons for why some individuals were not charged.
Reno specifically instructed Danforth to prepare two versions of his report, a confidential one and another for public release. Rod Rosenstein, the Justice Department’s No. 2 official, gave no such instruction to Mueller when he appointed him in May 2017.
In 2000, Danforth held a news conference to publicly release his report, exonerating federal agents and Justice Department officials of any wrongdoing.
OUTING OF CIA AGENT PLAME
In 2003, James Comey, then the Justice Department’s No. 2 official, appointed Patrick Fitzgerald as special counsel to investigate how CIA operative Valerie Plame’s cover was blown through media leaks. Fitzgerald was not appointed under the 1999 regulations and was not bound by them.
Fitzgerald held a 2005 news conference to announce that a grand jury had returned a five-count indictment against Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, for obstruction of justice, perjury and making false statements. Fitzgerald never published a final report on his findings.
A jury convicted Libby. Republican President George H.W. Bush commuted his sentence in 2007. Trump gave Libby a full pardon in 2018.
(This story has been refiled to insert dropped word in lead paragraph.)
(Reporting by Sarah N. Lynch; Editing by Will Dunham)
Acting Pentagon Chief Patrick Shanahan said on Monday he had provided Congress with a list of projects from the military construction budget that could be cut back in order to help pay for a wall on the border with Mexico.
Last month Trump declared a national emergency in a bid to fund his promised wall at the U.S.-Mexico border without congressional approval.
The emergency declaration allows the Trump administration to use money from the military construction budget, if needed.
Trump issued the first veto of his presidency on Friday to block a measure passed by Democrats and Republicans in Congress that would terminate his emergency declaration for a wall on the U.S. border with Mexico to stem illegal immigration and crime.
Speaking before the start of his meeting with his French counterpart, Shanahan was asked if he had sent the list of projects to Congress.
"I have," Shanahan said.
The more than 20-page document seen by Reuters included all the projects that were not awarded funding as of Dec. 31 2018.
The list includes a cemetery at the U.S. Military Academy in New York and a command and control facility at Camp Tango in South Korea.
It is essentially up to Congress to go through the list and figure out which projects will not be affected, including military housing, barracks and projects that have already been awarded funding.
The list is unlikely to satisfy Congress.
"This list is wholly insufficient and just tells Congress what projects it already approved," said Evan Hollander, a spokesman for Representative Nita Lowey, a Democrat and chairwoman of the House Appropriations Committee.
"This appears to be nothing more than another stall tactic designed to delay the political consequences of President Trump’s emergency declaration," Hollander said.
In a statement, the Pentagon said the pool of projects included was valued at about $12.9 billion. The Pentagon has said it could use about $3.6 billion from the military construction budget this year, if needed.
The issue was highlighted during a tense Congressional hearing on Thursday, when Democratic Senators demanded that they be provided a list of military that could be impacted if funding was used to build a wall.
"We know President Trump wants to take money from our national security accounts to pay for his wall, and now we have a list of some of the projects and needed base repairs that could be derailed or put on the chopping block as a result," Senator Jack Reed said in a statement.
Source: NewsMax Politics
On Tuesday, U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) unabashedly embraced the tactics behind one of the most shameful policies of the Obama era, openly using the guise of her federal authority to berate and not so subtly threaten a bank for lawfully serving businesses that don’t reflect her political views.
While the media did their best to protect Barack Obama and his administration from any hint of scandal, two gun related issues managed to stain the White House with considerable and widespread disrepute.
One concerned a program to secretly “walk” guns from American firearm dealers directly into the clutches of ruthless Mexican drug cartels, while at the same using the resulting violence as a pretext to call for increased firearm regulation in the U.S. The officials involved dubbed this Operation Fast & Furious. It was only the death of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, killed in a shootout that involved one of the “walked” guns, that finally forced the issue into the national consciousness.
The other scandal involved federal regulators pressuring banks and payment processors to sever ties with businesses that were completely lawful but that offended anti-gun sensibilities. These included members of the gun industry. This program was known as Operation Choke Point (OCP), and while no fatalities have been attributed to it, the scheme struck at the heart of the rule of law.
In the case of OCP, Department of Justice and Federal Deposit Insurance Company officials provided sworn testimony to Congress denying that regulators were pressuring banks to drop business the regulators found morally objectionable. Apparently, they suggested, the banks just misunderstood the “risk management” guidance they were being provided. In time (after considerable damage had already been done, and the banks thoroughly understood their unwritten marching orders), guidance documents were revised to “clarify” the regulators’ “true intent.”
But an oversight hearing by the House Financial Services Committee on Tuesday provided one of the clearest and most shocking examples to date of how anti-gun Democrats are now willing to embrace as official policy what was still treated as scandal under the Obama administration.
The title of the hearing was “Holding Megabanks Accountable: An Examination of Wells Fargo’s Pattern of Consumer Abuses.” Wells Fargo, not coincidentally, provides banking services to the NRA.
The only witness at the four hour plus hearing was Wells Fargo President and Chief Executive Officer Timothy J. Sloan. Mr. Sloan had the unenviable task of serving as punching bag during an extended production of Political Outrage Theatre. The entire premise of the hearing was that Wells Fargo might very well have to endure yet more regulation and oversight – or perhaps be broken up altogether – unless Mr. Sloan provided satisfactory answers to committee members’ questions about the bank and its business practices.
Maloney, for her part, excoriated Mr. Sloan and Wells Fargo for refusing to follow the lead of other national banks that had refused or severed business with members of the gun industry that did not “voluntarily” adopt certain gun control “best practices” that exceed the requirements of federal law.
These practices include banning long gun purchases by young adults eligible for military service and refusing to recognize the 3-day default transfer option that gun dealers may exercise if the FBI does not complete a background check. They also just happened to mirror policy goals that anti-gun Democrats – a category that includes Maloney herself – have been pursuing through legislation they have not to date been successful in enacting.
Maloney, in other words, was not accusing Wells Fargo of having done anything illegal by transacting with members of the firearm industry. Rather, she was criticizing the bank for not imposing anti-gun rules that Congress itself has failed to adopt.
Maloney noted that Wells Fargo does have corporate “human rights” practices that in some cases exceed legal and industry standards. She then mentioned the Parkland massacre, as if Wells Fargo were somehow complicit in the acts of a deranged murderer who had nothing to do with the bank and who had been given authorization to buy the gun he used in his crime by the federal government itself via its background check system.
“Why,” Maloney demanded to know, “does Wells Fargo continue to put profits over people by financing companies that are making weapons that are literally killing our children and our neighbors? … How bad does the mass shooting epidemic have to get before you will adopt common sense gun safety policies like other banks have done?”
Given the backdrop of Operation Choke Point, Maloney might as well have asked, “Federal regulators and big city newspapers have browbeaten your competition into submission on the issue of servicing firearm industry clients. How dare you defy their wishes and continue to do so?” She also invoked the shibboleth that school shootings are increasing, a premise that research refutes.
Mr. Sloan calmly answered, “We don’t put profits over people. We bank many industries across this country.” He continued, “We do our best to ensure that all of our customers who we bank follow the laws and regulations that are in place on a local and a state and a national level.”
Maloney then interrupted, insisting that the bank’s commitment to gun control should be as strong as its commitment to human rights.
Mr. Sloan, however, stood his ground. “We just don’t believe that it is a good idea to encourage banks to enforce legislation that doesn’t exist.”
He didn’t add, but he could have, that respect for human rights also necessitates respect for the fundamental rights of self-preservation and self-protection.
The entire exchange can be seen on this video, starting at 48:03.
Needless to say, no business in America could survive if it had to comply not just with all the binding laws that regulators foist upon the country’s companies and employers but with the personal sensibilities and politics of all 535 federal legislators, plus those of thousands of federal bureaucrats.
Nor could any business survive if it had to answer for every unaffiliated person who abused or misused one of its products or services.
That is why America is often said to be a country of laws, not men. That principle has provided the most stable and prosperous economy and business environment the world has ever known.
That stability is threatened, however, by those like Maloney and others who would rule by intimidation and humiliation rather than by duly enacted legislation.
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Source: The Daily Caller
Joshua Gill | Religion Reporter
Chinese authorities said they arrested nearly 13,000 “terrorists” and punished more than 30,000 for “illegal religious activities” in the Xinjiang region since 2014.
The Chinese government issued a report Monday about its ostensible security measures employed in Xinjiang, in response to international backlash about the use of internment camps, which officials call “vocational training centers,” and severe legal restrictions against Uyghur Muslims in the region, according to The Associated Press.
The government report claimed authorities have arrested 12,995 “terrorists,” seized 2,052 explosive devices, and broken up 1,588 “terrorist gangs” in the region since 2014. (RELATED: China Strongly Implies Muslim Internment Camps Will Never Go Away)
Government officials also said in the report that they confiscated 345,229 copies of “illegal religious publicity materials,” likely meaning Korans, as the Chinese government banned owning or selling a Koran in Xinjiang. Chinese authorities have provided little to no evidence that those who they charge with terrorism in the region actually have ties to foreign terrorist groups, as Beijing claims.
Chinese authorities also outlawed fasting during Ramadan, public prayer, beards and forbade anyone under the age of 18 from participating in religious services. Beijing’s severe crackdown against Islam in the region come as part of Chinese president Xi Jinping’s policy of sinicization, which is a campaign to bring all religions in line with the Communist Party’s vision of Chinese culture.
The report all but confirms Beijing’s goal of forcefully sinicizing the Uyghur Muslims, saying though it “cannot be denied that Xinjiang received the influence of Islamic culture,” it is an “objective fact” that Xinjiang’s culture is ultimately part of Chinese culture.
“Islam is not the natural faith of the Uyghurs and other ethnicities, nor is it their only faith,” the report reads.
Patrick Poon, an Amnesty International China researcher, said Beijing’s report proves Chinese authorities are using a vague definition of terrorism to justify what he says is the arbitrary arrest and detention of thousands of people.
“It’s exactly because of the Chinese government’s arbitrary and vague definition of these terms that leads to mass arbitrary detention of many ordinary people in Xinjiang,” Poon said, according to the AP.
Poon also criticized the Chinese government’s labeling of internment camps as “vocational training centers.”
“It’s simply not normal at all for people losing contact with their relatives if they are merely receiving ‘vocational training’ as the Chinese government claims,” Poon said.
Dilxat Raxit, a spokesman for the World Uyghur Congress, said China was using the report to try to garner international sympathy for its harsh treatment of Uyghurs.
Maya Wang, a senior China researcher for Human Rights Watch, went so far as to call China’s bluff, saying the government should open the camps to investigation if it had nothing to conceal.
“If the Chinese government is so certain that it has nothing to hide in Xinjiang, then it should allow independent international observers such as the U.N. into the region,” Wang said.
Former internment camp detainees claim camp officials subjected them to forced medication, forced medical procedures, inhumane living conditions, brainwashing and compelled them to renounce Islam and pledge their loyalty to the state.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
Source: The Daily Caller
Amber Athey | White House Correspondent
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) disputed claims Monday that they are refusing medical care for a severely sick infant that is currently being detained with his father at the border.
The claim that ICE is housing a sick infant originated in a tweet thread over the weekend by RAICES, a nonprofit that provides legal services to illegal immigrants. RAICES asserted that they are in contact with a father who said his baby is suffering from “nonstop diarrhea,” “stomach pain” and is unable to eat. The family is allegedly being kept in the Karnes detention center in Texas.
Several Democratic congresswomen tweeted about the child, urging ICE to take the baby to the hospital immediately.
“This is inhumane,” Democratic Texas Rep. Veronica Escobar wrote.
Two children have already died while in @CBP custody. Right now, a very ill 1-year old baby is not receiving the adequate medical care at Karnes, TX.
This is inhumane. This baby must be taken to a hospital immediately. https://t.co/byMjGrO1NI
— Rep. Veronica Escobar (@RepEscobar) March 18, 2019
Several children have already died in @ICEgov and @CBP custody. Right now, a very ill 1 year old child is suffering at Karnes and is not receiving the adequate medical care to get better. This child must be taken to a hospital immediately. @RAICESTEXAS #StoriesFromKarnes
— Rep. Norma Torres (@NormaJTorres) March 18, 2019
“A child is sick,” Democratic Texas Rep. Sylvia Garcia declared. “We need to know that medical care is being offered. Unacceptable.”
— Rep. Sylvia Garcia (@RepSylviaGarcia) March 17, 2019
ICE, however, denied that they are in custody of any sick child. (RELATED: Nielsen To Conduct Firsthand Review Of DHS Practices At Border)
In a statement released Monday, ICE indicated that they “completed auxiliary wellness checks over the weekend” to determine if a child exhibiting the aforementioned symptoms was in custody at Karnes.
Out of an abundance of caution, in response to anonymous reports of a sick child, ICE officials completed auxiliary wellness checks over the weekend & confirmed that no child currently in custody at the Karnes FRC is exhibiting signs of dehydration… (1/2)
— ICE (@ICEgov) March 18, 2019
…Nor was any resident seeking medical attention for a child with the symptoms described in the anonymous reports. Read the full statement on the false report of a sick child below. (2/2) pic.twitter.com/XW8WFqq0bc
— ICE (@ICEgov) March 18, 2019
“ICE officials completed auxiliary wellness checks over the weekend & confirmed that no child currently in custody at the Karnes FRC is exhibiting signs of dehydration, nor was any resident seeking medical attention for a child with the symptoms described in the anonymous reports,” ICE stated.
In August, an immigration lawyer falsely accused ICE of allowing a child to die from respiratory illness in the Dilley Family Detention Center in Texas. After ICE disputed that report, the lawyer updated her claim to indicate that the child died after she left ICE custody. (RELATED: ICE Says Reports About Child Dying In Texas Facility Are False)
Source: The Daily Caller
African refugee women experience healthier pregnancies than women born in the United States, despite receiving less prenatal care, found a recent University at Buffalo study.
Compared to U.S.-born black and white women, African refugee women had fewer pre-pregnancy health risks, fewer preterm births and higher rates of vaginal deliveries. Surprisingly, the refugee women were more likely to delay beginning prenatal care until the second trimester.
The disparity, says the researchers, may be tied to various unhealthy behaviors and practices present within U.S. culture. For African refugee women, acculturation may negatively impact health.
“It is often thought that refugees immigrating to the United States from war-torn nations will experience a better quality of life once here,” says Kafuli Agbemenu, Ph.D., assistant professor in the UB School of Nursing and lead investigator on the study, published in February in the Journal of Women’s Health.
“However, some of the elements of U.S. life such as eating processed food, an increased reliance on cars or buses for transportation, extended inclement weather, a more individualistic society, and drug and alcohol use may, in fact, contribute to African refugee women having poorer reproductive health outcomes.”
Reproductive health disparities between U.S.-born white and black women are well documented, says Agbemenu. However, few comparisons have been made between African refugee women and U.S.-born women.
African refugee women are susceptible to numerous health disparities as a result factors such as socioeconomic status, gender, ethnicity, low-levels of education and language. Another risk-factor specific to their population is the high prevalence of past traumatic experiences.
These risks led researchers to believe African refugee women would have poorer reproductive health outcomes than women born in the U.S. The unexpected results reveal that the healthy immigrant effect—a phenomenon where immigrants experience healthier outcomes than native populations—extends to reproductive health.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is under fire from faith leaders after he signed a bill into law that legalizes abortion up until birth.
The researchers examined electronic birth certificate data from hospitals within Erie County, an area of Western New York that resettles a large number of refugees. The data contained clinical, psychosocial, socioeconomic and demographic information, as well as the mother’s country of birth.
Women born in Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Eritrea, Rwanda and Somalia were considered of refugee status for the study, due to the large refugee populations in Western New York resettled from these nations.
The data contained information on nearly 60,000 white, almost 17,500 black and close to 800 African refugee women who gave birth from 2007-16. The information was limited to mothers who used Medicaid to cover medical expenses to control for socioeconomic status.
Researchers discovered that African refugee women had significantly less maternal medical risk factors, such as pre-pregnancy hypertension or diabetes, compared to U.S.-born women. Refugee women experienced more vaginal births, and were less likely to undergo cesarean sections or to be medically induced into labor.
Less than 1 percent of refugee women smoked or took illegal drugs during pregnancy, compared to white women (12 percent smoked, 4.5 percent took illegal drugs) and black women (15 percent smoked, 18 percent took illegal drugs).
Refugee women also had the fewest preterm birth (6 percent) compared with white women (9 percent) and black women (13 percent).
While most of the women from all groups began prenatal within the first trimester, African refugee women were more likely to delay prenatal care until the second trimester. Refugee women also received higher amounts of inadequate prenatal care (27 percent) compared to white women (12 percent) and black women (24 percent).
These favorable health outcomes for African refugee women also occurred in spite of the group experiencing higher rates of meconium staining, the earliest stool of an infant that when passed in the womb is a sign of fetal distress.
The high rate of inadequate prenatal care for African refugee women is troubling, says Agbemenu, and indicative of the disconnect between refugee populations and the health care community.
“These women have reported feeling ostracized and marginalized by the medical community,” says Agbemenu. “They are at times hesitant to seek care, and when they do, it is typically at a time when the problem has escalated.”
The development of culturally-targeted reproductive health education is urgently needed, she says. Health care professionals also need to understand that refugee women are likely to have histories of trauma and, therefore, need care delivered from a trauma-informed perspective.
Alex Jones exposes the massive push around the globe to use corporate media to use the New Zealand shooting to smear patriots.