Connect with us

News

'Something needs to change.' Woman denied abortion in South Carolina challenges ban

Published

on

'Something needs to change.' Woman denied abortion in South Carolina challenges ban

Over two dozen abortion-rights supporters attend a rally outside the South Carolina State House in Columbia, S.C., on Aug. 23, 2023. The South Carolina Supreme Court ruled to uphold a law banning most abortions except those in the earliest weeks of pregnancy.

James Pollard/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

James Pollard/AP


Over two dozen abortion-rights supporters attend a rally outside the South Carolina State House in Columbia, S.C., on Aug. 23, 2023. The South Carolina Supreme Court ruled to uphold a law banning most abortions except those in the earliest weeks of pregnancy.

James Pollard/AP

Taylor Shelton said she isn’t ready to be a mother. She’d been using birth control for years — an intrauterine device (IUD), which is said to be more than 99% effective.

She’d just gotten the device checked by a doctor when she missed her period in September.

Advertisement

“When I found out I was pregnant, I was shocked to say the least,” Shelton told NPR.

Shelton and her boyfriend decided together that she would get an abortion. But South Carolina’s fetal heartbeat ban had just taken effect.

“I thought, ‘Luckily, I’m under six weeks. This shouldn’t be hard,’” said Shelton. “And then it turned out to be unbelievably hard.”

Shelton ultimately had to travel out of state to get an abortion.

“It was unnecessary, and it was traumatizing,” said Shelton. She’s now suing the state, alongside Planned Parenthood, arguing the ban’s parameters are vague and make it nearly impossible to get an abortion.

Advertisement

“The government want[s] us to be responsible. Well, I’m telling you right now — I had birth control. I tracked my period. I took the pregnancy test as soon as possible,” said Shelton. “And even then, I could not figure out how to get this procedure done.”

Abortion-rights advocates held a news conference last May before debate of a bill that would restrict abortions after six weeks.

Logan Cyrus/AFP via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Logan Cyrus/AFP via Getty Images


Abortion-rights advocates held a news conference last May before debate of a bill that would restrict abortions after six weeks.

Logan Cyrus/AFP via Getty Images

Questions persist on when during pregnancy the ban applies

Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, most Republican-controlled states have enacted abortion bans of some kind.

In South Carolina, the Republican-dominated General Assembly passed an abortion ban after a “fetal heartbeat” is present.

Advertisement

Republican lawmakers at the time argued that South Carolina was becoming “an abortion destination state,” as women facing strict bans across the South sought abortions.

The ban defines a “fetal heartbeat” as “cardiac activity, or the steady and repetitive rhythmic contraction of the fetal heart, within the gestational sac.”

That has been interpreted as around six weeks of pregnancy, before most women know they are pregnant.

But physicians who specialize in reproductive health have called the “fetal heartbeat” language misleading.

Vicki Ringer, the director of public affairs for Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, said the definition describes two different points in pregnancy: an electrical impulse that appears at roughly six weeks and an actual heart, which Ringer said does not begin to form until at least nine weeks.

Advertisement

“This is what happens when you have legislators that try to practice medicine,” said Ringer.

Advertisement

It’s not the first time the ban’s language has been called into question. Even as the South Carolina Supreme Court upheld the law six months ago, its chief justice noted that the “fetal heartbeat” definition is ambiguous, writing, “We leave for another day … the meaning of ‘fetal heartbeat.’”

Planned Parenthood and Shelton are asking the state court to clarify the ban and allow abortions up to at least nine weeks.

“Nine weeks will allow about 50% of the patients that come to see us [to get an abortion],” said Ringer, adding that Planned Parenthood in South Carolina currently provides abortions to only 10% of those seeking one.

After the lawsuit was filed, the state attorney general said his office has defended the law in the past and will continue to do so.

Ringer said the ambiguity of the ban, coupled with the threat of criminal charges for abortion providers, has led to a chilling effect in the state and has left patients like Shelton vulnerable.

Advertisement

“My blood is boiling about it”

Shelton said she filed the lawsuit so other women wouldn’t have to go through a similar experience.

After learning she was pregnant, she immediately called her gynecologist and asked the receptionist how to get an abortion.

“‘Do you know where I can get help?’” Taylor remembers asking. “‘Do you have any resources for me?’ And each answer was, ‘no, no, no.’”

Next, Shelton called Planned Parenthood, which has two clinics that provide abortion in the state. But the ban had left those clinics overwhelmed. They could not see Shelton before six weeks.

Shelton then started to search online and found a pregnancy center in North Carolina, which has a 12-week ban requiring two appointments: one for counseling where an ultrasound is performed and another for the abortion itself.

Advertisement

Shelton said the center told her it could see her quickly and perform the ultrasound.

“My mom came with me. We drove four hours to Charlotte,” she said. “The moment I stepped foot in that place, I felt uncomfortable.”

She said it felt like a bait-and-switch.

“It was anything that could prevent me from the idea of an abortion, that abortion is bad,” said Shelton.

When Shelton insisted she wanted an abortion, she said the center would no longer give her an ultrasound.

Advertisement

“It turns out this place was a fake abortion clinic, an anti-abortion clinic,” said Shelton.

Ringer said crisis pregnancy centers are popping up across the southeast, appearing on searches for abortion services but then offering only anti-abortion information when women arrive.

But Shelton was also experiencing pain. She let the counselor know, explaining her IUD was still in place.

“And immediately it was, ‘Oh my goodness, you need to go to the hospital. Your baby could be in danger,’” said Shelton. “Not me, but the baby could be in danger.”

Shelton left the pregnancy center in tears and immediately called her gynecologist. The doctor removed the IUD, which was bent, and said that this was what was likely causing Shelton’s pain.

Advertisement

Shelton finally connected with Planned Parenthood in North Carolina. After two more trips, she got an abortion at six weeks, four days pregnant.

“It’s so surreal. I could have never seen this happening to me. And now that it has, I mean, my blood is boiling about it,” Shelton said, adding she can’t imagine what would have happened if she did not have the support of her family, the means to travel and money for all the appointments.

“I think that my story shows the six-week ban is not enough time to be fair and that something needs to change.”

News

How the federal government is painting immigrants as criminals on social media

Published

on

How the federal government is painting immigrants as criminals on social media

Getty Images, Dept. of Homeland Security and The White House via X/Collage by Emily Bogle/NPR

Two days after At Chandee, who goes by Ricky, was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the White House’s X account posted about him, calling the 52-year-old the “WORST OF WORST” and a “CRIMINAL ILLEGAL ALIEN.”

Except that the photo the White House posted was of a different person. The post also incorrectly claimed Chandee had multiple felony convictions — he has one, for second-degree assault in 1993 when he was 18 years old. He shot two people in the legs and served three years in prison.

Advertisement
At "Ricky" Chandee with his wife, Tina Huynh-Chandee.

At “Ricky” Chandee with his wife, Tina Huynh-Chandee.

Via the Chandee family


hide caption

toggle caption

Via the Chandee family

Advertisement

Chandee, who came to the U.S. as a child refugee, was ordered to be deported back to his home country, Laos. But Laos had not been accepting all of the people the U.S. wanted it to, so the federal government determined that it was likely infeasible to deport him, his lawyer Linus Chan told NPR. Chandee therefore was granted permission to stay in the U.S. and work so long as he checked in with immigration authorities periodically. He has not missed a check-in in over 30 years and has not had another criminal incident.

People who know Chandee do not see him as “worst of the worst.”

After Chandee completed his prison sentence, he finished school and became an engineering technician. He worked for the City of Minneapolis for 26 years, became a father, and his son grew up to join the military.

In his free time, Chandee enjoys hiking and foraging for mushrooms, Minnesota Public Radio reported.

Advertisement

“We are proud to work alongside At ‘Ricky’ Chandee,” said Tim Sexton, Director of Public Works for the City of Minneapolis in a statement. “I don’t understand why he would be a target for removal now, why he was brutally detained and swiftly flown to Texas, or how his removal benefits our city or country.” Chandee is petitioning for his release in federal court.

Chandee’s case is not unique 

Social media accounts from the White House, the Department of Homeland Security and other immigration agencies have spent much of the past year posting about people detained in the administration’s immigration crackdown, typically portraying them as hardened, violent criminals. That’s even as over 70% of the people detained don’t have criminal records according to ICE data.

NPR’s research of cases in Minnesota shows that while many of the people who have been highlighted on social media do have recent, serious criminal records, about a quarter are like Chandee, with decades-old convictions, minor offenses or only pending criminal proceedings. Scholars of immigration, media and criminal law say such a media campaign is unprecedented and paints a distorted picture of immigrants and crime.

A year into President Trump’s second term, the X accounts of DHS and ICE have posted about more than 2,000 people who were targets of mass deportation efforts. Starting late last March, DHS and ICE began posting on X on a near daily basis, often highlighting apprehensions of multiple people a day, an NPR review of government social media posts show.

Advertisement

Among the 2,000 people highlighted by the agencies, NPR identified 130 who were arrested by federal agents in Minnesota and tried to verify the government’s statements about their criminal histories.

In most of the social media posts, the government did not provide the state where the conviction occurred or the person’s age. Public court records do not tend to include photos so definitive identification can be a challenge.

NPR derived its findings from cases where it was able to locate a name and matching criminal history in the Minnesota court and detention system, in nationwide criminal history databases, sex offender databases, and in some cases, federal courts and other state courts.

In 19 of the 130 cases, roughly 1-in-7, public records show the most recent convictions were at least 20 years ago.

Seventeen of the 19 cases with old convictions did include violent crimes like homicide and first-degree sexual assault. ICE provided some of those names to Fox News as key examples of the agency’s accomplishments. “It’s the most disturbing list I’ve ever seen,” said Fox News reporter Bill Melugin on X, highlighting the criminal convictions of each person on the list.

Advertisement

For seven people, their only criminal history involved driving under the influence or disorderly conduct.

ICE agents approach a house before detaining two people in Minneapolis on Jan. 13.

ICE agents approach a house before detaining two people in Minneapolis on Jan. 13.

Stephen Maturen/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

Six of the 130 Minnesota cases highlighted by the administration involved people with no criminal convictions. The government’s social media posts for those six instead rely upon the charges and arrests as evidence of their criminality, even though arrests don’t always lead to charges and charges can be dismissed.

In yet another case, the government highlighted a criminal charge even while noting it had been dismissed. (The person did have other existing convictions.)

For 37 of the 130 people, NPR was unable to confirm matching criminal history after consulting the databases and news coverage. Some of the names turned up no criminal history at all. The government said these people committed crimes ranging from homicide and assault to drug trafficking, and cited one by name to Fox News. NPR tried to reach out to all 37 people and their families for comment but did not receive a response from any.

Advertisement

In a statement to NPR, DHS’s chief spokesperson Lauren Bis did not dispute NPR’s findings or provide documentation where NPR wasn’t able to confirm matching criminal history.

“The fact that NPR is defending murderers and pedophiles is gross,” Bis wrote. “We hear far too much about criminals and not enough about their victims.” before listing four of the people with old convictions of homicide and sexual assault, underlining the date of deportation order for three of them.

Images designed to trigger emotion

The stream of social media posts with photos of mostly nonwhite people are meant to draw an emotional response, says Leo Chavez, an emeritus professor of anthropology at the University of California, Irvine. They “have been used repeatedly over and over to get people to buy into, really drastic, drastic and draconian actions and policies,” he said.

Chavez, whose most recent book is The Latino Threat: How Alarmist Rhetoric Misrepresents Immigrants, Citizens, and the Nation, recalls how political campaigns in past decades presented images of Latinos — often men — without context. “Just by showing their image, showing brown people, particularly brown men, it’s supposed to be scary.”

The fact that the government’s social media posts come with statements about criminal history as well as photos reinforces that emotional response, Chavez said. DHS has previously acknowledged inaccuracies on their website. But even if the department issues corrections, Chavez said, “the goal was actually achieved, which was to reinforce the criminality and the visualization.”

Advertisement

CNN’s analysis of DHS’s “Arrested: Worst of the Worst” website showed that for hundreds out of about 25,000 people posted on the website, the crimes listed were not violent felonies. Instead, DHS listed people with records that included traffic offenses, marijuana possession or illegal reentry. DHS said the website had a “glitch” that it will fix but also that the people in question “have [committed] additional crimes.”

“I’ve never seen anything like this when it comes to immigration enforcement in the modern era,” said Juliet Stumpf, a professor at Lewis & Clark Law School who studies the intersection of immigration and criminal law. She said the drumbeat of social media posts focused on specific individuals was like “FBI’s most wanted posters” or “like reality TV shows.”

Then-DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin, flanked by deputy director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Madison Sheahan, left, and Acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Todd Lyons, speaks during a news conference at ICE Headquarters, in Washington, D.C., on May 21, 2025.

Then-DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin, flanked by deputy director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Madison Sheahan (left), and Acting director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Todd Lyons, speaks during a news conference at ICE Headquarters, in Washington, D.C., on May 21, 2025.

Jose Luis Magana/AP


hide caption

Advertisement

toggle caption

Jose Luis Magana/AP

Stumpf drew a parallel with an incident from the 1950s when the U.S. government deported two permanent residents suspected of being communists. “The government was kind of proclaiming and celebrating their deportation because getting rid of these communists was making the country safer,” said Stumpf, “Maybe that’s comparable to something like [this].”

An analysis by the Deportation Data Project shows a dramatic increase in arrests of noncitizens without criminal records during President Trump’s current term compared to President Biden’s term.

Advertisement

“If you look at research, immigrants actually tend to commit fewer crimes than even U.S. citizens do. And that’s true of immigrants who have lawful status here and immigrants who don’t,” said Stumpf. “If we have a number of social media posts that are painting immigrants as the worst of the worst…it’s actually really putting out a distorted version of reality about who immigrants actually are.”

Some claims are disputed by other authorities

In some posts, DHS and ICE have also used photos of people and statements about their criminal histories to burnish the federal government’s accomplishments, defend their agents and criticize states like Minnesota. State and local authorities have in turn pushed back, and some of the federal government’s claims about the people it has detained have been met with setbacks in the courts.

DHS accused Minnesota’s Cottonwood County of not honoring detainers, written requests by ICE to hold prisoners in custody for a period of time so ICE can pick them up. In one post, the agency identified a person who was charged with child sexual abuse, writing “This is who sanctuary city politicians and anti-ICE agitators are defending.”

The Cottonwood County sheriff’s office said DHS’s post “misrepresented the truth” in their own post on Facebook. According to their account, the county did honor the detainer but ICE said it was unable to pick up the person before the order expired and the county had to release the suspect.

The Minnesota Department of Corrections wrote in a blog post that dozens of people DHS listed on its “Worst of the Worst” website were not arrested as DHS described, but were transferred to ICE by the state because they were already in state custody. The Corrections Department has since launched a page dedicated to “correct the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) repeated false claims.”

Advertisement

The “Worst of the Worst” website has some overlap with the department’s social media posts, but it contains a much larger number of people — over 30,000 nationally. It included a Colombian soccer star who was extradited to the U.S., tried in Texas, convicted of drug trafficking and served time in federal prison. The website incorrectly describes him as being arrested in Wisconsin. The soccer player, Jhon Viáfara Mina, recently finished his sentence early and returned to Colombia, according to Spanish newspaper El Diario Vasco.

In some instances, DHS and ICE wrote about incidents where they ran into conflict when carrying out arrests. In those posts, they named the arrestees and posted their photos. But in one case where the incident went to court, the government’s account of the events shifted. After a federal agent shot Julio C. Sosa-Celis in Minneapolis in January, DHS claimed he was lodging a “violent attack on law enforcement.” Assault charges against Sosa-Celis fell apart in court as new evidence surfaced, and the officers involved were put on leave.

Despite the fact that the charges were dropped, DHS’s post profiling Sosa-Celis remains online.

Continue Reading

News

Bill Clinton to testify before House committee investigating Epstein links

Published

on

Bill Clinton to testify before House committee investigating Epstein links

Former president Bill Clinton is scheduled to give deposition Friday to a congressional committee investigating his links to Jeffrey Epstein, one day after Hillary Clinton testified before the committee and called the proceedings “partisan political theatre” and “an insult to the American people”.

During remarks before the House oversight committee, Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of state, insisted on Thursday that she had never met Epstein.

The former Democratic president, however, flew on Epstein’s private jet several times in the early 2000s but said he never visited his island.

Clinton, who engaged in an extramarital affair while president and has been accused of sexual misconduct by three women, also appears in a photo from the recently released files, in a hot tub with Epstein and a woman whose identity is redacted.

Clinton has denied the sexual misconduct claims and was not charged with any crimes. He also has not been accused of any wrongdoing connected to Epstein.

Advertisement

Epstein visited the White House at least 17 times during the early years of Clinton’s presidency, according to White House visitor records cited in news reports. Clinton said he cut ties with him around 2005, before the disgraced financier, who died from suicide in 2019, pleaded guilty to solicitation of a minor in Florida.

The House committee subpoenaed the Clintons in August. They initially refused to testify but agreed after Republicans threatened to hold them in contempt.

The Clintons asked for their depositions to be held publicly, with the former president stating that to do so behind closed doors would amount to a “kangaroo court”.

“Let’s stop the games + do this the right way: in a public hearing,” Clinton said on X earlier this month.

The committee’s chair, James Comer, did not grant their request, and the proceedings will be conducted behind closed doors with video to be released later.

Advertisement

On Thursday, Hillary Clinton’s proceedings were briefly halted after representative Lauren Boebert leaked an image of Clinton testifying.

During the full day deposition, Clinton said she had no information about Epstein and did not recall ever meeting him.

Before the deposition, Comer said it would be a long interview and that one with Bill Clinton would be “even longer”.

Continue Reading

News

Read Judge Schiltz’s Order

Published

on

Read Judge Schiltz’s Order

CASE 0:26-cv-00107-PJS-DLM

Doc. 12-1 Filed 02/26/26

Page 5 of 17

and to file a status update by 11:00 am on January 20. ECF No. 5. Respondents never provided a bond hearing and did not release Petitioner until January 21, ECF Nos. 10, 12, after failing to file an update, ECF No. 9. Further, Respondents released Petitioner subject to conditions despite the Court’s release order not providing for conditions. ECF Nos. 5, 12–13.

Abdi W. v. Trump, et al., Case No. 26-CV-00208 (KMM/SGE)

On January 21, 2026, the Court ordered Respondents, within 3 days, to either (a) complete Petitioner’s inspection and examination and file a notice confirming completion, or (b) release Petitioner immediately in Minnesota and confirm the date, time, and location of release. ECF No. 7. No notice was ever filed. The Court emailed counsel on January 27, 2026, at 10:39 am. No response was provided.

Adriana M.Y.M. v. David Easterwood, et al., Case No. 26-CV-213 (JWB/JFD)

On January 24, 2026, the Court ordered immediate release in Minnesota and ordered Respondents to confirm the time, date, and location of release, or anticipated release, within 48 hours. ECF No. 12. Respondent was not released until January 30, and Respondents never disclosed the time of release, instead describing it as “early this morning.” ECF No. 16.

Estefany J.S. v. Bondi, Case No. 26-CV-216 (JWB/SGE)

On January 13, 2026, at 10:59 am, the Court ordered Respondents to file a letter by 4:00 pm confirming Petitioner’s current location. ECF No. 8. After receiving no response, the Court ordered Respondents, at 5:11 pm, to immediately confirm Petitioner’s location and, by noon on January 14, file a memorandum explaining their failure to comply with the initial order. ECF No. 9. Respondents did not file the memorandum, requiring the Court to issue another order. ECF No. 12. On January 15, the Court ordered immediate release in Minnesota and required Respondents to confirm the time, date, and location of release within 48 hours. ECF No. 18. On January 20, having received no confirmation, the Court ordered Respondents to comply immediately. ECF No. 21. Respondents informed the Court that Petitioner was released in Minnesota on January 17, but did not specify the time. ECF No. 22.

5

Continue Reading

Trending