reject

Nov. 30 (UPI) — Swiss voters have rejected a tax on ultra wealthy residents and turned down a proposal to extend mandatory military service to women, initial poll results showed Sunday.

Nearly 85% of voters rejected military or civic service for females, and 79% voted against a 50% inheritance tax for the most wealthy Swiss.

The inheritance tax would have imposed the levy on individuals receiving a tax-free amount of 50 million Swiss Francs, or just over $62 million. The proposal, made by the youth wing of the leftist Social Democrats, would have directed the funds toward the nation’s climate change mitigation efforts.

The inheritance tax would have affected about 2,500 hundred Swiss, or about 0.03% of the population.

The mandatory military proposal, called “For a committed Switzerland,” would have extended compulsory military or civilian service to women. It already applies to Swiss men.

It would have expanded forms of service to include causes that benefit society, including environmental protection, helping vulnerable citizens and aiding in disaster prevention efforts.

The Geneva-based servicecitoyen.ch proposed the service initiative, ans was backed by a petition with 107,613 signatures. It had the support of the Liberal Greens, the Evangelical Party, the Pirate Party and the youth wing of the Center Party.

Polling ten days prior to the election predicted broad based opposition to both measures. Critics of the inheritance tax warned that passing it could lead to an exodus of wealthy people from the country and cause irreparable economic harm, and that any proceeds generated by the tax would not make up for the lack of spending by the people affected if they left.

Reporting from Washington — The Supreme Court signaled Monday it is not anxious to revisit the abortion controversy in the year ahead, disappointing conservative activists who were cheered by the appointment of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.

After weeks of debate behind closed doors, a divided court turned down appeals backed by 13 conservative states that sought to defund Planned Parenthood.

The court’s action leaves in place federal court rulings in much of the country that prevent states from denying Medicaid funds to women who go to a Planned Parenthood clinic for healthcare, including medical screenings or birth control. It is already illegal in most cases to use federal money like Medicaid to pay for abortions, but some states wanted to go further, cutting off all Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood because the organization offers the procedure using alternative revenue sources.

In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch, accused their colleagues of allowing a “politically fraught issue” to justify “abdicating our judicial duty.”

The lower courts are divided on the Medicaid funding dispute, making the high court’s refusal to clarify the issue all the more surprising to some.

“We created the confusion. We should clear it up,” Thomas wrote in Gee vs. Planned Parenthood. “So what explains the court’s refusal to do its job here? I suspect it has something to do with the fact that some respondents in these cases are named ‘Planned Parenthood.’ ”

The brief order denying the appeals from Louisiana and Kansas suggests Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Kavanaugh were not willing to hear the cases.

The high court’s refusal to hear an appeal petition is not a ruling, and it will not prevent the justices from taking up the issue in the future or ruling against Planned Parenthood eventually.

Kavanaugh’s vote against hearing the case was noteworthy since it was his first abortion-related case, but it does not necessarily reflect how he would rule in future cases. Many legal experts predict Kavanaugh would vote to restrict or overturn the landmark Roe vs. Wade abortion ruling.

For now, however, the chief justice may have preferred to avoid controversies that result in a 5-4 split along ideological lines, particularly in the aftermath of the fierce partisan fight over Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Last month, Roberts objected to President Trump’s criticism of an “Obama judge” and issued a statement saying, “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.”

Even so, if the court had agreed to decide the Medicaid dispute, the justices could well have split along the usual conservative versus liberal lines, with the five Bush or Trump appointees on one side and the Clinton and Obama appointees on the other side in dissent.

In their appeals, lawyers for Kansas and Louisiana pointed to a recent split among the U.S. appeals courts. Last year, the U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis, breaking with others, upheld Arkansas’ decision to cut off funding to Medicaid to Planned Parenthood clinics.

It takes four justices to hear a case, and these appeals were considered in a series of closed-door meetings since late September. But the court’s conservatives were unable to gain the needed fourth vote. Kavanaugh took his seat in the second week of October, and his supporters have assumed he would vote in favor of restricting abortion rights when given the opportunity.

Catherine Foster, president of Americans United for Life, said her group was disappointed with the court’s action. “We join the dissent in calling on the court to do its duty,” she said.

“The pro-life citizens of states like Kansas and Louisiana, through their elected representatives, have clearly expressed their will. They do not want Medicaid tax dollars used to prop up abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, an antiabortion nonprofit. “The pro-life grass roots will not stop fighting until every single tax dollar is untangled from the abortion industry.”

Planned Parenthood called the outcome a victory for patients. “As a doctor, I have seen what’s at stake when people cannot access the care they need, and when politics gets in the way of people making their own healthcare choices,” said Dr. Leana Wen, the group’s president. “We won’t stop fighting for every patient who relies on Planned Parenthood for life-saving, life-changing care.”

In the last decade, conservative states have sought to defund Planned Parenthood because it is the nation’s largest single provider of abortions. None of the Medicaid money pays for abortions, and most of the state funding bans have been blocked by federal judges.

Medicaid is jointly funded by the federal government and the states, and Congress has said its funds may not be used to pay directly for abortions, except when the woman’s life is in danger or in cases of rape or incest. But more than 2 million people go to Planned Parenthood clinics for birth control and general healthcare, including cancer screenings and pregnancy tests. And for low-income women, this healthcare can be paid for through Medicaid.

Republican lawmakers who sponsored the defund laws argue the states should not indirectly subsidize facilities that perform abortions.

But lawyers for Planned Parenthood and their patients have gone to federal courts and won rulings blocking most of the laws from taking effect. They have done so by relying on a provision in the Medicaid Act that says eligible patients may go to any doctor’s office, hospital or clinic that is “qualified to perform” the required medical services. If a federal law creates a right for individuals, plaintiffs like the Planned Parenthood patients may go to court and sue if that right is denied.

But in their appeals, lawyers for Kansas, Louisiana and 13 other states argued that Medicaid is a healthcare spending agreement, not a law that establishes rights for individuals. If so, they said, states may decide who is a qualified provider of healthcare.

The latest from Washington »

More stories from David G. Savage »

[email protected]

Twitter: DavidGSavage

Voters in Ecuador have rejected a proposal to allow the return of foreign military bases, according to early referendum results, with a count of close to 90 percent of ballots showing nearly two-thirds voting “no” on the proposal.

The loss on Sunday was a blow to President Daniel Noboa, who has said foreign cooperation, including shared or foreign bases within the country, is central to fighting organised crime.

A separate measure to convene an assembly to rewrite the constitution also had more than 61 percent rejection, with nearly 88 percent of votes counted.

Noboa acknowledged the defeat in a post on X.

“We respect the will of the Ecuadorian people,” he wrote.

“Our commitment does not change; it strengthens. We will continue to fight tirelessly for the country that you deserve, with the tools that we have.”

The rejection blocks the United States military from returning to an airbase at Manta on the Pacific coast – once a hub for Washington’s anti-drug operations.

Ecuador banned foreign military bases on its soil in 2008.

In Sunday’s referendum, voters were also asked if Ecuador should cut public funding for political parties, and if the number of legislators in the nation’s congress – the National Assembly – should be reduced from 151 representatives to 73.

The early count showed those proposals failing by a large margin, too.

Unprecedented violence

The referendum is taking place amid unprecedented violence in Ecuador, which has become a key transit point for cocaine produced in neighbouring Colombia and Peru. Drug trafficking gangs have attacked presidential candidates, mayors and journalists, as they fight for control over ports and coastal cities.

The vote also comes as the US military conducts a series of air strikes against alleged drug smuggling boats, a divisive policy from President Donald Trump that Noboa has backed.

Alessandro Rampietti, reporting from the Ecuadorian capital, Quito, said many voters had expressed concerns over sovereignty if foreign militaries return.

“The main issue here is the sovereignty and the fact that this country has had experience of having military bases in the past. And there have been allegations of many abuses committed by the US soldiers when they were in the country, including the sinking of fishermen’s boats, and also an increase in prostitution in the towns near the bases, as well as mistreatment of locals by these soldiers, who had immunity,” Rampietti said.

“So, it seems like a majority of people say no. They are saying we can do it with our police and our army. And that the problem is the corruption, the problem is that the laws in the country are not implemented.”

The US has previously praised Noboa as an “excellent partner” in efforts to curb illegal immigration and drug trafficking, and Ecuadorean authorities said prior to the referendum that a “no” vote on the military bases question would not derail security plans.

Noboa ratified two agreements for joint military operations with the US last year. The countries also maintain an aerial interception agreement, enabling drug and weapons seizures at sea.

US Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem also recently toured military facilities in Manta and an airbase in Salinas alongside Noboa.

‘Mistrustful of the US’

Michael Shifter, a senior fellow at the Inter-American Dialogue and an adjunct professor of Latin American Studies at Georgetown University, said the outcome on Sunday marked a “big setback” for Noboa.

“The Trump administration saw Naboa as a key ally and assumed the Ecuadorian people would go along with restoring the military base that existed before on the coast,” he told Al Jazeera from Washington, DC.

“And this is clearly the Ecuadorans rejecting that. They prize their sovereignty, their independence… They are very suspicious, very mistrustful of the US administration, especially as they are watching what’s going on with blowing up of boats and killing people in the Caribbean and in the Pacific as well.”

In office since November 2023, Noboa has deployed soldiers on the streets and in prisons, launched dramatic raids on drug strongholds, and declared frequent states of emergency.

Still, in the first half of this year, there were 4,619 murders – the “highest in recent history”, according to Ecuador’s Organized Crime Observatory.

Just as voting began, Noboa announced that the leader of the country’s most notorious gang, Los Lobos, had been captured.

The most-wanted drug kingpin known as “Pipo” had “faked his death, changed his identity and hid in Europe”, Noboa said on X.

Interior Minister John Reimberg later said Pipo had been detained in Spain in a joint operation between Ecuadoran and Spanish police.