July 2, 2019

No Image

Serena Williams And Andy Murray Team Up To Play Mixed Doubles At Wimbledon

Serena Williams plays against Italy’s Giulia Gatto-Monticone in a women’s singles match at Wimbledon on Tuesday.

Ben Curtis/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Ben Curtis/AP

Two tennis greats are pairing for mixed doubles at Wimbledon: Serena Williams and Andy Murray will team up for the competition. Entries for the draw close Wednesday morning.

Earlier this week both players hinted at the possibility of playing together. Two-time Wimbledon champion Murray said, “I’m definitely playing in the mixed. I have got my partner – well 90 per cent sure.

“Is it Serena? Possibly. I just need to just confirm it.”

Williams has dominated women’s tennis, winning 23 major singles championships and 14 in women’s doubles with her sister Venus.

At a news conference earlier this week, Williams fielded questions about the possibility of pairing with Murray. “His work ethic is just honestly off the charts. That’s something I’ve always respected about him. His fitness, everything. To do what he’s done in an era where there’s so many other great male tennis players, so much competition, to rise above it, not many people have done it. He’s actually one of the few,” Williams said, according to The Associated Press.

“Above all … he really speaks up about women’s issues, no matter what,” Williams continued. “You can tell he has a really strong woman in his life. I think, above all, that is just fantastic.”

Williams advanced on Tuesday at Wimbledon, beating the world No. 161, Giulia Gatto-Monticone from Italy, 6-2, 7-5. Murray is entered in men’s doubles at Wimbledon with Pierre-Hugues Herbert.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

OPEC Formally Embraces Russia, Other Non-Members In Expanded “OPEC+”

A Saudi worker adjusts flags of participating countries before a meeting of energy ministers from OPEC and its allies in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, on May 19. OPEC+ countries met again in Vienna on Monday and Tuesday and agreed to formalize their relationship in a “Charter of Cooperation.”

Amr Nabil/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Amr Nabil/AP

OPEC used to shift world oil markets with a single announcement. These days, the Saudi-led organization needs help from some key partners — most significantly Russia — to exert that kind of influence.

The expanded alliance, which also includes Kazakhstan, Mexico and other nations, is known as “OPEC+.” And on Monday and Tuesday, OPEC+ made its unofficial expansion a little more official.

Member and non-member states have agreed on a “Charter of Cooperation” to formalize their relationship, pending approval from individual governments.

Khalid Al-Falih, the Saudi oil minister, called the move “historic.”

The charter “has created one of history’s strongest producer partnerships, spanning the entire world from east to west,” he said Tuesday. “Our objectives related to market stability are now matched by the horsepower needed to deliver them.”

For many decades, OPEC had that horsepower all on its own: its members controlled a majority of the world’s crude supply.

But the balance of power in the global oil market has changed. A technological revolution unlocked vast quantities of previously tough-to-access crude. The U.S. unexpectedly became the world’s No. 1 oil producer and a significant exporter. OPEC found itself controlling less than half the world’s crude, and watched as oil prices dropped.

So Saudi Arabia looked to a country that, until just a few years ago, had never cooperated with OPEC cuts and was regarded by key OPEC members as an oil rival instead of an ally: Russia. After the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, Russia is the world’s third-largest oil producer.

“There is no question that OPEC’s need to reach out to other large producers like Russia was a direct result of the fact that they were losing their power and influence over the oil market because of the rise in U.S. production and U.S. exports,” says Amy Myers Jaffe, the director of the program on energy security and climate change at the Council on Foreign Relations. “Russia and OPEC decided that they would have to form a partnership or they would lose their influence completely.”

Fortified by Moscow and other cooperating non-members, OPEC+ once again controls most of the world’s crude oil supply. In late 2016, the group agreed on production cuts that are credited with helping stabilize oil prices after their two-year slide. They’ve been extended repeatedly since then.

Building this partnership has not been easy. Iran, a founding member of OPEC, has always been wary of the power its regional rival Saudi Arabia wields within the group, and the new OPEC+ arrangement — which pivots on the partnership between Riyadh and Moscow — gives even more authority to the Saudis.

Meanwhile, Iran also has reason to be worried that the Saudi-Russia partnership could threaten the existing strategic military alliances between Iran and Russia, explains Jaffe.

“Iran is pretty isolated,” she says. “If … Russia feels there’s some benefit to itself from having a tight relationship with Saudi Arabia, then who does Iran go to for any assistance?”

As a result, while Iran has accepted the OPEC+ production cuts, it has spoken out against formalizing the expanded coalition — that is, it accepted the functional reality of the partnership but objected to putting it down in writing. Ahead of the OPEC meeting on Monday, Iran vowed to veto the plans for the charter of cooperation.

Oil minister Bijan Zangeneh went so far as to say that “OPEC might die” as a result of domination by Saudi Arabia and Russia.

But after marathon negotiations on Monday, Iran was persuaded to sign off on the draft text of the charter, which was approved by the participating non-member states on Tuesday.

OPEC+ members welcomed the charter as a tool for strengthening producers’ influence over the oil market.

However, Jaffe notes that even bolstered by the expansion, OPEC+ may not have the ability to move the price of oil as significantly as in the past. Many OPEC members are struggling with involuntary production cuts — from Venezuela’s collapse to U.S. sanctions on Iran. Meanwhile, the U.S. and other non-OPEC producers can ramp up production very quickly, thanks to new drilling technologies.

And if OPEC does push succeed in pushing prices up significantly, Jaffe says, it could backfire — from an oil producer’s standpoint — by pushing the world to more quickly reduce its demand for oil.

“If the price of oil were to go up today … more and more people would be inclined to buy an electric car,” she says. “There are all kinds of features today with new technology that make it actually very dangerous to OPEC’s long-term interest to really jack around the price of oil.”

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

Newly Blue, Maine Expands Access To Abortion

Alison Beyea of ACLU of Maine speaks during an abortion-rights rally at Congress Square Park in Portland, Maine, in May. Democrats elected last November have pushed through two laws that expand access to abortion in the state.

Derek Davis/Portland Press Herald via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Derek Davis/Portland Press Herald via Getty Images

While abortion bans in Republican-led states dominated headlines in recent weeks, a handful of other states have passed laws to expand abortion access. Maine joined those ranks in June with two new laws — one requires all insurance and Medicaid to cover the procedure and the other allows physician assistants and nurses with advanced training to perform it.

With these laws, Maine joins New York, Illinois, Rhode Island and Vermont as states that are trying to shore up the right to abortion in advance of an expected U.S. Supreme Court challenge. But what sets Maine apart from the other states is how recently Democrats have taken power.

“Elections matter,” says Nicole Clegg of Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. “In 2018, we saw the largest number of women get elected to our legislature. We saw an overwhelming majority of elected officials who support reproductive rights and access to reproductive health care.”

The dramatic political change also saw Maine elect its first female governor, Janet Mills, a Democrat who took over from Paul LePage, a Tea Party stalwart who served two terms. LePage had blocked Medicaid expansion in the state even after voters approved it in a referendum.

Clegg and other supporters of abortion rights have hailed the new abortion legislation as a big win.

“It will be the single most important event since Roe v. Wade in the state of Maine,” Clegg says.

Taken together, the intent of the two laws is to make it easier for women to afford and find abortion care in the rural state.

Nurse practitioners like Julie Jenkins, who works in a small coastal town, say that increasing the number of abortion providers will make it easier for patients who now have to travel long distances in Maine to get the procedure from a doctor.

“Five hours to get to a provider and back — that’s not unheard of,” Jenkins says.

Under the law set to go into effect in September, physician assistants and nurses with advanced training will be able to perform a surgical form of the procedure known as an aspiration abortion. These clinicians already are allowed to use the same technique in other circumstances, such as when a woman has a miscarriage.

Maine’s other new law will require all insurance plans — including Medicaid — to cover abortions and is supposed to be implemented early next year. Kate Brogan of Maine Family Planning says this legislation is a workaround for dealing with the U.S. law known as the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funding for abortions except in extreme circumstances.

“That is a policy decision that we think coerces women into continuing pregnancies that they don’t want to continue,” Brogan says. “Because if you continue your pregnancy, Medicaid will cover it. But if you want to end your pregnancy, you have to come up with the money [to pay for an abortion].”

State dollars, not federal, will pay for the abortions performed through Maine’s Medicaid program (in general, Medicaid is funded by both state and federal tax dollars).

Though the bill passed in the Democratic-controlled Legislature, it faced staunch opposition from Republicans, including state Sen. Lisa Keim, during floor debates.

“Maine people should not be forced to have their hard-earned tax dollars [used] to take the life of a living pre-born child,” Keim says.

Instead, Keim argues, abortions for low-income women should be funded by supporters who wish to donate money. Otherwise, she said during the debate, the religious convictions of abortion opponents are at risk.

“Our decision today cannot be to strip the religious liberty of Maine people through taxation,” Keim says.

Rep. Beth O’Connor, a Republican who says she personally opposes abortion but believes women should have a choice, says she had safety concerns about letting clinicians who are not doctors provide abortions.

“I think this is very risky, and I think it puts the woman’s health at risk,” O’Connor says.

In contrast, advanced-practice clinicians say the legislation merely allows them to operate to the full scope of their expertise and expands patients’ access to important health procedures. The measure also has the backing of physician groups, including the Maine Medical Association.

Just as state laws restricting abortion are being challenged, so are Maine’s new laws. Days after Maine’s law regarding Medicaid and abortion passed, organizations that oppose abortion rights announced they would mount an effort to put the issue on the ballot for a people’s veto.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)