Friday, September 02, 2022

Chip Fall-out

 

US Restriction On Nvidia, AMD Selling Chips To China Poses Structural Risk For Semiconductor Industry, Analyst Says


Shanthi Rexaline, Benzinga
 Sep. 2, 2022, 06:48 AM

Nvidia the latest collateral damage in US-China tech war

Rita Liao
·2 min read
  • Nvidia, the world's largest maker of artificial intelligence chips, is at the heart of a new round of U.S. tech sanctions targeting China.
  • The ban could cost Nvidia as much as $400 million in potential sales to China in the third quarter, the firm said.
  • The export control also bars Nvidia from shipping the chips to Russia, though the company said it doesn't currently sell to the country.

Nvidia, the world's largest maker of artificial intelligence chips, is at the heart of a new round of U.S. tech sanctions targeting China.

Nvidia noted in an SEC filing that the U.S. government had imposed new export restrictions on two of its most advanced AI chips to China, its second-largest market after Taiwan, making up 26% of its revenues in 2021.

The ban could cost Nvidia as much as $400 million in potential sales to China in the third quarter, the firm said.

The export control also bars Nvidia from shipping the chips to Russia, though the company said it doesn't currently sell to the country.

The U.S. government said the move "will address the risk that the covered products may be used in, or diverted to, a ‘military end use’ or ‘military end user’ in China and Russia." But the ban is in practice crimping a wide array of businesses and organizations using the silicons beyond military uses.

The two chips in question are the Nvidia A100 and H100 graphic processing units. A100 is designed to provide high-performance computing, storage and networking capabilities for industries spanning healthcare, finance and manufacturing, explains Chinese e-commerce and cloud computing giant Alibaba, a user of A100.

H100 is the firm's upcoming enterprise AI chip that is expected to ship by the end of this year and has part of its production done in China.

Nvidia's engagement with China won't be completely severed. The U.S. government has granted permission for Nvidia to keep manufacturing H100 in China, Nvidia said in another filing, though access by Chinese customers will still be restricted.

The ban is "sci-tech hegemony", snapped China's foreign ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin in a regular press conference on Thursday. "The US seeks to use its technological prowess as an advantage to hobble and suppress the development of emerging markets and developing countries."

The U.S.'s move to bar China's access to its high-end technologies has in turn accelerated the latter's pursuit of independence. Huawei has been doubling down on smartphone chip development ever since Washington put it on an export blacklist over national security concerns in 2019. A swathe of domestic semiconductor startups is netting hefty investments from VCs and government-guided funds.

While China may still be a generation behind in producing the most sophisticated chips, the country is gradually sharpening its edge in lower-end, specialized semiconductors, such as neural processing units that give phone cameras a boost. It remains to be seen what ripple effect the Nvidia ban will create.

Nvidia’s limited China connections

at No comments:

EXIT INTERVIEW

✓ Let's get something right - James Baldwin is NOT a "little known Black author and activist" as incorrectly described by KJZZ reporter Lauren Gilger.

Back on May 17, 1963 - 59 years ago!  - TIME described James Baldwin ".., in the U.S. today there is not another writer—white or black—who expresses with such poignancy and abrasiveness the dark realities of the racial ferment in North and South." 

WHAT A "TIME WARP" does KJZZ reporter Lauren Gilger live in?



"A few years ago, Cauley was at the height of her career in Phoenix. In the summer of 2020, her mural of little known Black author and activist James Baldwin went up on the side of the Ten-O-One building on Roosevelt Row downtown — nine stories tall.

✓

kjzz.org

Exit Interview: Why painter Antoinette Cauley left Phoenix for Berlin

By Lauren Gilger
4 minutes

Antoinette Cauley James Baldwin mural phoenix

Antoinette Cauley

Antoinette Cauley poses in front of her mural of James Baldwin on the Ten-O-One Building in downtown Phoenix.

Born and raised in Phoenix — largely in south Phoenix — painter Antoinette Cauley’s art is a mix of intense realism, portraiture that she has called “hood whimsical.” She sees herself as a representative — and an advocate — for the Black community in south Phoenix.

“My entire next body of work is specifically about south Phoenix, and it will tie in the south sides of other major cities globally,” Cauley said. “So I feel like what I’ve been doing is sort of dipping my toe in the water of speaking to and for the community here. And what I’m about to do is kick in some doors and yell for the community here.”

Antoinette Cauley James Baldwin mural phoenix

Antoinette Cauley

Antoinette Cauley beneath her mural of James Baldwin on the Ten-O-One Building in downtown Phoenix.

A few years ago, Cauley was at the height of her career in Phoenix. In the summer of 2020, her mural of little known Black author and activist James Baldwin went up on the side of the Ten-O-One building on Roosevelt Row downtown — nine stories tall. She did it in the midst of the Black Lives Matter movement. His silhouette is outlined with a Baldwin quote: “Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced.”

It was a bold move by an up-and-coming child prodigy of an artist who felt like she was finally having her moment.

“I want Black children to be able to look at this mural and see the possibilities for themselves,” she said in an August 2020 interview with The Show. “I want this to be a mirror.”

She painted the Baldwin mural overlooking the streets where protesters had marched for justice in the wake of George Floyd’s death. And it made her a household name here But personally, post-Floyd America was suffocating her. She said she felt like she had to get out of Phoenix — out of America.

“My body sort of had this fight-or-flight response, and I was like ‘Man, I’ve got to get out of this country.’ This country is not built for us. It’s built by us, but it’s not for us. And it never will be for us, so I need to go somewhere where it’s safer.”

At the same time, even as her career blossomed in Phoenix, she felt she had hit a ceiling here. As much as she loves this place, it couldn’t give her what she needed as an artist anymore.

Antoinette Cauley painting James Baldwin

at No comments:

Thursday, September 01, 2022

BACK TO FUTURE COLONIALISM - To The Moon & Beyond!

 Pause.



Humans Are Revisiting the Moon—and the Rules of Spacefaring - WIRED

www.wired.com › Science › Artemis
8 days ago · The US-led Artemis Accords attempt to update regulations for space exploration—but they raise questions about equity and resource use.


The US government is essentially trying to persuade others of its view of the Outer Space Treaty, which predates the space industry and efforts to extract space resources, says Timiebi Aganaba, a space governance expert at Arizona State University in Phoenix. “By pushing their interpretation, and then through these bilateral arrangements, the US is trying to get other people to buttress that perspective. And then they’re going to make the argument that this is representing custom,” she says.

Chinese and Russian officials have criticized the Artemis Accords, likening them to colonialism or to a program “resembling NATO,” and they have stated that they have no intention of joining. These two countries are major players in space. Although Russia’s space program may be in some jeopardy thanks to the sanctions and partnership losses that followed its invasion of Ukraine, it has long been a space superpower. Meanwhile, the Chinese space program has grown rapidly over the past two decades

www.wired.com

Humans Are Revisiting the Moon—and the Rules of Spacefaring

Ramin Skibba
Ramin Skibba is WIRED’s space writer, where he covers the vastest beat, including space scientists, space environmentalists, space politics, space conflicts, and the space industry, from launch to reentry. Prior to joining WIRED, he freelanced for Scientific American, The Atlantic, Undark magazine, Slate, and other magazines, and before that, he... Read more
10 - 12 minutes

"The moon’s about to become a busy place. Following the Artemis 1 launch scheduled for next week, on subsequent missions NASA and its partners will send astronauts to explore the surface and assemble a station in lunar orbit. China’s and Russia’s space agencies plan to survey the moon’s water ice and build a shared research station. And companies like Astrobotic and Moon Express seek to send landers, experiments, and eventually cargo for paying customers.



 

Yet laws governing space exploration haven’t changed much in decades, despite rapidly increasing activity and competition. The Outer Space Treaty, a crucial agreement hashed out by negotiators from once-fledgling spacefaring nations, is now 55 years old—it was written before Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong had even set foot on the moon. That treaty stated that anyone can use space but no one owns it, and that exploration should be done to benefit all people. It also prohibited nuclear weapons in space. But it included few details, leaving it open to interpretation.


During the Trump administration, US officials drafted the Artemis Accords—rules for lunar exploration which, although developed by a single nation, could shape the future of moon outposts, colonies, and space mining. The administration announced the accords in May 2020, at a time when it wasn’t even clear whether the Artemis program would continue under a different president. But now these issues are no longer abstract: NASA engineers declared on Monday that the Space Launch System and Orion spacecraft will depart on August 29 for an uncrewed mission to orbit the moon. And the agency has already chosen some candidate landing spots for astronauts’ return to the lunar surface in 2025 or 2026—all near sites on the south pole that may harbor much-needed water ice.

The accords lay out a US-led vision for exploring the moon and beyond—their scope includes Mars, comets, and asteroids—with some guidelines for what future robotic spacecraft and astronauts should and shouldn’t do. For example, actors are supposed to use space only for peaceful purposes, share scientific data with the public, and demarcate safety zones around their lunar activities. The accords also elevate commerce to the same level as scientific exploration.



So far, 21 countries have joined the accords, including most recently France and Saudi Arabia, as well as frequent NASA partners Japan, Canada, Italy, and the United Kingdom. Notably, China and Russia have not. Nor has Germany, a key member country of the European Space Agency.



 

Unlike previous international agreements, the accords are not a treaty—but they could become de facto guidelines in lieu of more formal laws. “The Artemis Accords are more of a declaratory policy for the United States: ‘This is how we intend to act on the moon, and these are our principles we’re going to follow,’” says Kaitlyn Johnson, deputy director of the Aerospace Security Project at the nonprofit Center for Strategic and International Studies. “But the accords are gaining more importance as more countries sign onto them, especially big spacefaring nations.”

✓ Dean Cheng, an expert on China’s space program at the Heritage Foundation, agrees that the accords began with the US unilaterally laying out a legal framework and then cobbling together bilateral agreements with other countries—and he points out that they are mostly close allies. “The Artemis Accords are basically a ‘coalition of the willing’—if you can still use that term without irony—of countries saying ‘We’re all interested in joining with the US, and we’re in agreement with the rules,’” Cheng says, referring to the term former President George W. Bush used to describe the international coalition that invaded Iraq.


The accords could carry more weight as more countries join, making some practices universal. Those could include space powers working together to notify each other of planned lunar missions, or to limit junk in orbit. It’s akin to the work that diplomats at the United Nations have been doing to negotiate “norms of behavior” in space.

✓ ✓ The US government is essentially trying to persuade others of its view of the Outer Space Treaty, which predates the space industry and efforts to extract space resources, says Timiebi Aganaba, a space governance expert at Arizona State University in Phoenix. “By pushing their interpretation, and then through these bilateral arrangements, the US is trying to get other people to buttress that perspective. And then they’re going to make the argument that this is representing custom,” she says.

Chinese and Russian officials have criticized the Artemis Accords, likening them to colonialism or to a program “resembling NATO,” and they have stated that they have no intention of joining. These two countries are major players in space. Although Russia’s space program may be in some jeopardy thanks to the sanctions and partnership losses that followed its invasion of Ukraine, it has long been a space superpower. Meanwhile, the Chinese space program has grown rapidly over the past two decades, and its lunar exploration program, known as Chang’e, could be seen as a rival to Artemis. The nation’s upcoming plans for the moon include launching a sample return mission, orbiting a spacecraft, sending a rover, and then eventually building a lunar research station in cooperation with Russia. (Like Artemis, Chang’e is named after a goddess.) 


As China develops its moon missions, the country’s space program will continue doing its own thing, rather than joining the Artemis Accords, says Cheng: “China is saying, ‘We’re going to make our own rules.’” But China may adopt some best practices from the accords, he adds.

The agreements appear friendly to the private space industry. They build on the Obama administration’s Space Act of 2015 and former president Trump’s executive order in 2020, both of which sought to promote the private sector and facilitate mining on the moon and asteroids. They clarify that no nation can claim territory in space as its own, though they can dig up resources for their own use, like ice, which can be used for propellants and drinking water, and minerals, which could become the materials for 3D-printed structures.

If astronauts need to grab some lunar ice on a future Artemis mission, that won’t be a problem from a legal perspective, says Rossana Deplano, a researcher at the University of Leicester in the UK who has extensively studied the Artemis Accords’ effect on international space law. “What the Outer Space Treaty allows is using resources if it’s in support of a scientific mission. The Artemis missions are by definition scientific missions, so there is nothing unlawful for the US or other international partners taking part,” she says.

But the treaty also says that space exploration should be carried out “for the benefit of all peoples.” NASA and the European Space Agency frequently award contracts to private companies, and some of them are participating in the Artemis program. If these companies have their own designs on the moon, that could create a legal gray area. At the moment, Deplano argues, there’s nothing to stop NASA partners like SpaceX or Blue Origin from developing technologies while using government investment funds, and then reusing those technologies separately—while using the moon’s extremely limited ice and desirable landing spots for their own commercial purposes. 


That means companies from nations with advanced space programs, like the US and its partners, could get a head start toward benefiting from moon exploration. “This is essentially a privileged environment, which would allow certain portions of the world to develop much faster than others—developing the technology and know-how which would allow the commercial exploitation of those resources,” Deplano says.

Aganaba also foresees a possible legal clash over private mining in the future. The Moon Agreement of 1979, which was negotiated at the UN and signed by 18 countries, beginning with mostly Latin American and Eastern European nations, puts more stringent limits on mining, stating that “the moon and its natural resources are the common heritage of mankind.” This perspective would complicate private companies’ efforts to extract and use those resources. The US and most major spacefaring nations didn’t sign the Moon Agreement—but Aganaba points out that it has a similar number of signatories to the Artemis Accords, so it’s hard to say which will carry more weight.

Jessica West, a space security researcher at the research institute Project Ploughshares, based in Waterloo, Ontario, will be watching how the Artemis Accords apply in practice when it comes to protecting the moon itself. The accords include a narrow definition of “heritage” sites to be preserved—specifically, Apollo-era landing sites, but not the lunar landscape. They also call for “sustainability” practices, which are limited to preventing more debris from accumulating in Earth orbit but not conserving space resources, West says. For example, they don’t prohibit anyone from entirely scouring a crater for ice, depriving future generations and less advanced space programs of a crucial resource, or visibly altering the appearance of the moon in the night sky. 

And the accords only apply the concept of global “benefits” to science, not to the profits a company might gain by, say, mining lunar ice. “What does it mean to have universal benefit, for things to benefit all humankind?” West asks. “That's a broad principle, but it’s not dictated in practice. Traditionally, that has meant the sharing of scientific information, but it hasn’t meant financial benefits.”

While the Artemis Accords reflect the US’s current vision for the moon, it’s unclear how future international missions will play out, or whether concerns about inequality will grow, says Johnson, of the Aerospace Security Project. “There’s always this challenge of colonialism and first mover advantage,” she says. “Right now, wealthy countries have access to the moon and they are making the rules. There’s not a lot of equity there.”

at No comments:

JUST ANOTHER NO-NO NORMAL DAY IN ARIZONA ..."Legislative Privilege"

 intro: 



✓

www.azmirror.com

The Senate can use legislative privilege to shield some 'audit' records: Arizona Supreme Court

By: Jim Small - August 31, 2022 2:44 pm
5 - 6 minutes


"If the Arizona Senate provides more detailed explanations for why it says some records related to the partisan election review it conducted in 2021 are privileged and can’t be made public, those records should remain secret, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

 


In a long-running legal battle over records related to the so-called “audit” of the 2020 election in Maricopa County, the Senate has argued that roughly 1,000 records are entirely or partially covered by legislative privilege, meaning they aren’t subject to disclosure under Arizona’s public records law. 

An appellate court ruled that, while some of the records were plainly covered by the privilege, it was unclear whether the privilege should apply to others. So the court ordered the Senate to give the records over to a trial judge so he could examine them in private and determine if they should be made public or remain hidden. 

✓ But in doing so, the appellate court “overlooked a critical component” of the case law that guides when legislative privilege applies, the Supreme Court said. In addition to matters that deal directly with legislation — either existing or being considered — the privilege exemption also applies to “other matters placed within the jurisdiction of the legislature,” the justices ruled.


“We hold that the Senate engaged in a privileged legislative act when it exercised its statutory and constitutional authority to investigate the 2020 general election,” Justice John Lopez wrote in the unanimous ruling.


Even if there were no laws that were ever proposed as a result of the so-called “audit,” the privilege exists, Lopez wrote: “The legislative authority to investigate in contemplation of potential legislation concerning voter registration, election procedures, and election integrity, itself, is protected by legislative privilege.”

Further, the privilege isn’t wiped away if the entire “audit” was motivated solely by politics — critics have said the endeavor was aimed at bolstering Donald Trump’s lies about the election — as long as it was something the legislature had authority to do.

“We consider actions, not motives,” Lopez wrote. “Our analysis rests on the legislative nature of, rather than the motive for, the Senate’s Audit.”

That doesn’t mean all of the records are privileged, however. For instance, Lopez noted that legislative privilege doesn’t extend to “administrative or political” communications, including “payment, employment of consultants and the like.” Likewise, communications about “public reaction” to the election review or “what information should be released to the public” are political in nature and must be released.

Senate President Karen Fann praised the ruling.

✓✓ “This is a huge victory for the protection of the legislative process. This decision finally recognizes the broad application of legislative privilege and restores procedural sanity after the lower courts’ casual dismissal of the Senate’s claims of legislative privilege,” she said in a written statement. “We absolutely believe in transparency, however, there are times when legislative privilege should be exercised so that we can do the jobs that the people of Arizona elected us to carry out.”

American Oversight, the liberal government watchdog group that sought the records and sued the Senate for their release, said the ruling was “misguided.”

✓ “This ruling makes it easier for officials to hide the truth about their motives and conduct from the public,” said Heather Sawyer, American Oversight’s executive director.


It remains to be seen how many of the 1,000 or so documents the Senate says should remain private will be covered by the privilege. The Supreme Court said the Senate’s earlier description of documents withheld were too vague and didn’t allow the court or American Oversight to truly assess whether the records were privileged.

✓✓ “Greater detail is required to mitigate the risk that the vague descriptions in privilege logs could defeat transparency in government activities as required by law,” Lopez wrote. 

So the court ordered the Senate to “include specific assertions explaining why the document is purportedly privileged.” If the Senate does so and the descriptions “adequately delineate legislative acts,” then the trial court judge cannot view the records in private to determine if they are privileged. If the Senate doesn’t update its privilege logs, or doesn’t meet the standard set by the Supreme Court, then the judge can examine the records privately."

✓



Meet The Justices > Home - Arizona Judicial Branch

www.azcourts.gov › ... › Meet The Justices
Seven Justices are appointed by the Governor to serve on the Arizona Supreme Court for a regular term of six years. One Justice is selected by fellow ...

_____

✓



www.azmirror.com

Blake Masters has hired two 'fake electors' as campaign staffers

By: Jerod MacDonald-Evoy - September 1, 2022 11:12 am
5 - 6 minutes

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Blake Masters has hired two fake electors, according to his campaign finance reports.

Gregory Safsten has been paid $29,350.80 so far by the Masters campaign as a “campaign consultant.” Safsten was one of 11 people who signed a bogus document claiming former President Donald Trump won Arizona’s Electoral College votes in the 2020 election. 

The fraudulent elector document was organized by the Arizona Republican Party on behalf of Trump’s campaign, which encouraged similar efforts in other battleground states that Trump lost as part of a plan to let congressional Republicans reject Joe Biden’s win and install Trump for a second term. Safsten was the executive director for the

✓✓ Masters has also paid Mesa resident Lori Osiecki, who was one of a different group of 11 fake electors. She helped create a copy of the “certificate of ascertainment” that each state submits to cast their electoral votes. Osiecki and the others, who identified themselves as “The Sovereign Citizens of the Great State of Arizona,” sent signed, notarized certificates to the National Archives purporting to be electoral votes for Trump and they also sent a copy to the Secretary of State’s Office. . .

Masters’ campaign has paid Osiecki $500 in “salary” and $250 for “mileage,” according to FEC filings. His campaign refused to comment on Safsten or Osiecki, instead attacking the Mirror and his opponent Sen. Mark Kelly. 

“Must have missed about the story you wrote about how Mark Kelly appears in photos with child molesters (Navarette) and known anti-Semitic (Ilhan Omar),” 

✓ Masters spokeswoman Katie Miller, who is married to former Trump advisor Stephen Miller, said in an email. She was referring to former Democratic state legislator Tony Navarrete, who was arrested in 2021 for molesting a teen boy over several years. He is awaiting trial on seven felonies. 

In response to a follow-up question, Miller asked to speak off-the-record. When the Mirror said it was only willing to speak to her on-the-record, she lashed out.

“You’re phoning it in as a reporter instead of doing any actual work,” Miller said. 

✓ Masters’ campaign also is connected to other known purveyors of former President Donald Trump’s Big Lie, despite his campaign’s recent shift away from such language, as reported by CNN. 

✓ Former One America News host and Trump attorney Christina Bobb was paid more than $1,400 by the Masters campaign for “media consulting fees.” 

Bobb was part of the legal team directly involved with the efforts to overturn the election results and made baseless claims on air during the “audit” effort about both the 2020 election and the Jan. 6 insurrection.

✓✓ During the Arizona “audit,” Bobb had special access to the proceedings, and she frequently used her time on OAN asking viewers to donate money to an organization she ran that paid to give lawmakers “tours” of the “audit” floor. The organization she still runs helped raise $605,000 for Cyber Ninjas to conduct the partisan election review. 

✓ Masters has been attempting to soften his tone on abortion and election fraud, even going as far as removing a section from his website that claimed that the 2020 election was rigged against Trump. 

“We need to get serious about election integrity. The 2020 election was a rotten mess — if we had had a free and fair election, President Trump would be sitting in the Oval Office today and America would be so much better off,” Masters’ website said on August 1, the day before the primary. 

“We need to get serious about election integrity,” is all that remains of that statement now. 

Our stories may be republished online or in print under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. We ask that you edit only for style or to shorten, provide proper attribution and link to our web site. Please see our republishing guidelines for use of photos and graphics.

COMMENTARY 

 

www.azmirror.com

Will Kari Lake enforce a ban on nearly all abortions? Voters deserve to know.

Dr. Laura Mercer
4 - 6 minutes

"As a physician, it’s important to me that I be as clear and honest as possible with my patients about their health, be it good news or bad news. Their health and well-being is at the forefront of my communication. I expect the same from our elected leaders. But now that Kari Lake will be the Republican nominee for governor of Arizona, I fear that her increasingly veiled stances against abortion could be not just misleading, but harmful and even deadly for Arizona women."

Dr. Laura Mercer
Dr. Laura Mercer

Dr. Laura Mercer is a native Arizonan and a practicing obstetrician-gynecologist in Phoenix. She is the chair of the Arizona Section of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and a member of the Committee to Protect Health Care. 

"Lake has made many statements on abortion in the past that have raised my concerns considerably as a doctor. Physicians, like the majority of Arizonans, regard abortion as lifesaving health care. Like other forms of health care, we believe decisions around abortion are private and personal, and should be made between women and their trusted doctors, without political interference.

We know that women from all walks of life make these decisions, because they’re our patients.

 

Yet Kari Lake has referred to abortion as “the ultimate sin.” Doctors find this label not just wrong, but dangerous. We took an oath to do no harm, and assigning this sort of stigma to standard health care is harmful, at best. We know our patients, we listen to them, and we trust them to make the right decisions for themselves and their health. 

We also know that, sometimes, abortion saves women’s lives, either in the immediate or longer term. Health issues aren’t black and white. Complications that seem minor earlier on in a pregnancy can escalate quickly, sometimes even within seconds. A condition that isn’t acutely deadly, such as bleeding, one day could worsen dramatically, causing unnecessary pain and suffering. Health conditions like high blood pressure can turn into a disease called preeclampsia, which can cause kidney failure, liver failure, seizures and even death. Doctors should be able to use the full range of reproductive health care in these instances not only to prevent death but also to avert severe health conditions long before they become deadly. . .

There’s a reason politicians don’t work in clinics or hospitals — they don’t have the medical training needed to answer these questions, to respond to changing health circumstances and make the best call to save their patient from severe suffering or death.

Perhaps sensing that most people don’t agree with her past statements on abortion, Lake has seemingly tried to move away from sharing specifics — another practice that makes doctors uneasy as we try to navigate the changing landscape of abortion laws.

Lake said in May that, as governor, she would work to enact anti-abortion legislation, but didn’t give specifics. Her campaign claimed that she supports exceptions from banning abortion for rape and incest. Yet she simultaneously says she supports Arizona’s existing (and conflicting) abortion laws, which do not provide such exceptions for rape and incest. And shortly after becoming the GOP nominee for governor, Lake dodged a question from a reporter asking if she would advocate for more restrictive abortion laws.

Doctors overwhelmingly oppose more restrictions on — and government interference in — abortion care. But if Lake supports extreme bans on abortion, she should give it to Arizonans straight. She should be honest and clear, just as physicians try to be when delivering bad news to patients.

Just as patients deserve to know what their future holds, Arizonans deserve to know if their governor will enforce a ban on nearly all abortions."


 


at No comments:
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)

BEA News: Gross Domestic Product by State and Personal Income by State, 3rd Quarter 2025

  BEA News: Gross Domestic Product by State and Personal Income by S...