Justify Wins Preakness, Keeping Triple Crown Hopes Alive
Justify, ridden by Mike Smith, wins the 143rd Preakness Stakes in the mud and fog Saturday to capture the second leg of the Triple Crown in Baltimore.
Baltimore Sun/TNS via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Baltimore Sun/TNS via Getty Images
Dense fog and a soggy track blurred ideal viewing conditions, but there was no mistaking Justify’s run to victory in the 143rd running of the Preakness Stakes at Pimlico Race Course in Baltimore.
Entering the race with overwhelming odds, the undefeated favorite, ridden by jockey Mike Smith, shot out of Post 7 with a clean start as he had in Kentucky. Smith takes his second Preakness win.
While Justify’s victory hardly came as a shock, don’t call it an easy win. The favorite, who had been recovering from a bruised hind foot, stayed nose-to-nose with trailing Derby runner-up Good Magic for the majority of the race.
In the end, though, Bravazo placed second and long shot Tenfold finished third, reports The Associated Press:
“Justify went the 1 3/16th-mile race in 1 minute, 55.93 seconds as the 2-5 favorite, beating Bravazo by a half-length, with Tenfold in third by a neck and Good Magic fading to fourth another neck back.”
“It was a nail-biter,” Justify’s trainer Bob Baffert told NBC Sports. “They put it to us. It was like they had their own private match race (but I’m) so happy we got it done. Such a great horse to handle all that pressure and get it done.”
Baffert is now one race closer to taking his second Triple Crown. Baffert led American Pharoah to Triple Crown victory in 2015, ending a 37-year-drought in series champions.
Justify’s next stop: the final jewel of the Triple Crown at Belmont Stakes in New York on June 9.
Proposed Abortion Restrictions Would Hit Young Patients Hardest
Don Gonyea talks to Kaiser Health News’ Julie Rovner about the Trump administration’s decision to revive a rule that cuts off federal family planning money from organizations that provide abortions.
DON GONYEA, HOST:
A new proposal on abortion from the Trump administration has health care providers and patients looking for answers on what it means for them. The proposal would ban Title X federal funds from going to any organization that provides abortions. It also stops those federal dollars from going to places that refer patients to abortion providers. Abortion rights groups are calling it a gag order. Other people see it as a campaign promise from the president being fulfilled, particularly because it would affect funding for Planned Parenthood. It’s another example of health care and politics coming together, which is why we have called Julie Rovner. She’s the chief Washington correspondent for Kaiser Health News. Julie, thanks for joining us.
JULIE ROVNER: Thanks for having me.
GONYEA: So, what exactly are these Title X funds, and why are they so controversial?
ROVNER: Well, Title X is Title X of the Public Health Service Act. It is the federal family planning program, and it provides money to organizations to provide not just family planning birth control but also screening for cancer and sexually transmitted diseases to both men and women. It’s been around since 1970. That was three years before abortion was made legal nationwide. So none of the funds from the family planning program have ever been allowed to be used to provide abortions.
GONYEA: OK, so the Reagan administration – and this is back in the 1980s – it proposed a similar rule that the Supreme Court did uphold. Why is this rule, today, being proposed again, and what does the previous decision mean for this particular moment?
ROVNER: Well, the rule that was proposed in the late 1980s was fought in court. As you mentioned, the Supreme Court upheld it. It went through the first Bush administration. By the time all of the court fights were finished, President Clinton had taken office and he canceled it, so it went away. And this is the first time that there is an effort to bring back this rule. And the goal, of course, is to to separate Planned Parenthood, the organization, from the Title X family planning program because Planned Parenthood uses nonfederal funds to refer for abortion and to promote abortion and to provide abortions. And that makes anti-abortion groups see red.
GONYEA: OK. So will this make it harder to get an abortion?
ROVNER: It is already hard to get an abortion. There are fewer and fewer abortion providers. The big question with these regulations is, will it make it harder to get family planning? The administration says that these rules, which we haven’t seen yet, would not take any money away from the program. But the question is, if Planned Parenthood can no longer participate, are there enough other providers to fill in the gaps in areas – particularly more remote, rural areas. Sometimes, Planned Parenthood is the only provider of these types of services, so it’s not clear what would happen as a result of that.
GONYEA: This is still a proposed rule change – proposed. When does it become official? What’s the process there?
ROVNER: We haven’t even seen the proposal. They’ve only sent it to the Office of Management and Budget. So when we see it, it will be a proposed rule. There will be a time for taking comments, and then we’ll see a final rule. That can take a couple of months or several months. So this is not a done deal.
GONYEA: I’m breaking no news here when I say abortion has been a huge political issue for decades now, but this seems like it guarantees it will be a bigger issue than it might have otherwise been in the midterms.
ROVNER: And I think that was the idea. This is the – anti-abortion group said this would be a way to sort of motivate the base, but I think it might motivate the other side as well. People who don’t like this rule think it will make it harder for Planned Parenthood to get funding. So, it might end up, as you mentioned, making this whole question a bigger issue in the campaign than it otherwise might have been. But at least it might turn out some more anti-abortion forces who otherwise could have stayed home.
GONYEA: That was Julie Rovner, Chief Washington Correspondent for Kaiser Health News. She joins us from our studio here in D.C. Thanks, Julie.
ROVNER: You’re welcome.
Copyright © 2018 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
N.H. Liquor Stores Are At The Center Of Cross-Border Bootlegging Stings
New Hampshire’s state-run tax free liquor stores draw in customers from across the region. They also draw in modern-day bootleggers, prompting a wave of recent arrests.
SCOTT SIMON, HOST:
New Hampshire may proudly have a libertarian streak, but the Live Free or Die state also boasts about its state-run liquor stores. Alcohol’s a big revenue generator for the government – low prices in stores located near the state’s borders draw in customers from across the region. As New Hampshire Public Radio’s Todd Bookman reports, that convenience is also attracting modern-day bootleggers and prompts a wave of recent arrests.
TODD BOOKMAN, BYLINE: Right around noon on November 9 of last year, a black Chevy Suburban pulled up to a New Hampshire liquor store. The driver was a guy named Juncheng Chen – 46 years old, from Queens, N.Y. Chen bought some booze, then headed off to another liquor store to make another purchase, then another, then another. In total, he bought liquor at six different New Hampshire stores that afternoon.
Chen didn’t know it, but he was being watched. A criminal investigator with the New York State Department of Taxation was trailing him from store to store, and then southbound on the highway. When Chen crossed the border back into New York, he was pulled over with more than a thousand bottles of alcohol in his trunk, including more than 500 bottles of Hennessy cognac. He was arrested on felony charges for violating New York state law regarding importation of liquor. Mingli Chen – no relation – is his attorney.
MINGLI CHEN: He was buying the alcohol for personal use – for parties at home or parties somewhere.
BOOKMAN: Five-hundred bottles of Hennessy for personal use. Anyways, New York officials declined to answer questions, so it’s hard to know how frequently they’re conducting these types of stings. But what’s clear is this. New Hampshire is a known source of cheap alcohol for bootleggers, who likely resell the product in other states. And law enforcement from other states are paying attention.
GARY KESSLER: From our perspective, this is an organized criminal activity.
BOOKMAN: Gary Kessler is Deputy Commissioner at the Vermont Department of Liquor Control. Court records show his agency is also staking out New Hampshire liquor store parking lots. When the customers cross back into Vermont, they’re arrested for violating that state’s liquor laws regarding importation. Defendants have been caught with tens of thousands of dollars’ worth of booze in their vehicles.
KESSLER: Clearly, these guys aren’t just randomly deciding that they’re going to come up and buy some cases of alcohol.
BOOKMAN: These operations by other states are happening without the assistance of New Hampshire officials – officials who quickly point out that, A, these customers aren’t violating any New Hampshire laws, and B, that the state-run liquor stores have always made attracting customers from other states a priority.
JOSEPH MOLLICA: Fifty percent of our business comes from cross-border sales.
BOOKMAN: This is New Hampshire Liquor Commission Chairman Joseph Mollica, speaking recently at the grand opening of a new state store.
MOLLICA: So contrary to what some people may feel, people coming to our outlets from cross-border and purchasing is extremely important to us.
BOOKMAN: These bootlegging stings come at an awkward time for the Liquor Commission. Earlier this year, New Hampshire politician Andru Volinsky called for an investigation into how the commission handles large, all-cash transactions. He says it may be violating federal financial laws. The IRS has also been questioning state employees about bootleggers in recent weeks.
Volinsky says the lack of communication between the states and the wave of recent arrests raises additional concerns.
ANDRU VOLINSKY: I think it’s a sad state of affairs that we, as New Hampshire, are not setting an ethical example.
BOOKMAN: Ethics and booze, however, rarely go hand in hand. For NPR News, I’m Todd Bookman in Concord, N.H.
(SOUNDBITE OF WHISKEY N’ RYE’S “BOOTLEGGER”)
Copyright © 2018 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
