The top seed at the Citi Open in Washington, US player John Isner, produced a dominating display against Australia&#39;s James Duckworth, winning his second round match 6-3, 6-4.&nbsp;The 31 year-old Isner hit 14 aces and lost just three points on his first serve, beating his 24-year-old opponent in just over an hour.&nbsp;Isner has made it through to the final of the Citi Open three times, and will be looking to go seven consecutive seasons winning at least one ATP World Tour title. 
 
France&#39;s Gael Monfils, who made it through the Washington final in 2011, defeated Taiwan&#39;s Yen-Hsun Lu 6-3, 6-2.&nbsp;It was a strong showing from Monfils, who has barely played over the last two months due to a virus, making 10 aces and did not face a break point.&nbsp;He now goes on to face Croatia&#39;s Borna Coric. 
 
Australian third seed Bernard Tomic beat US player Donald Young 7-6(4), 6-3.&nbsp;He won the game in just under an hour and half, and now goes on to face Ivo Karlovic in the third round.&nbsp;In a match between two young up-and-coming talents, Germany&#39;s 19-year-old Alexander Zverev defeated Taylor Fritz, winning 6-4, 6-2. 
 
(Reuters)

John Isner has made it through the the Citi Open final three times, and looks to go seven consecutive seasons winning at least one ATP title

The top seed at the Citi Open in Washington, US player John Isner, produced a dominating display against Australia's James Duckworth, winning his second round match 6-3, 6-4. The 31 year-old Isner hit 14 aces and lost just three points on his first serve, beating his 24-year-old opponent in just over an hour. Isner has made it through to the final of the Citi Open three times, and will be looking to go seven consecutive seasons winning at least one ATP World Tour title. France's Gael Monfils, who made it through the Washington final in 2011, defeated Taiwan's Yen-Hsun Lu 6-3, 6-2. It was a strong showing from Monfils, who has barely played over the last two months due to a virus, making 10 aces and did not face a break point. He now goes on to face Croatia's Borna Coric. Australian third seed Bernard Tomic beat US player Donald Young 7-6(4), 6-3. He won the game in just under an hour and half, and now goes on to face Ivo Karlovic in the third round. In a match between two young up-and-coming talents, Germany's 19-year-old Alexander Zverev defeated Taylor Fritz, winning 6-4, 6-2. (Reuters)

Isner, Monfils win at ATP Washington Open

A top Islamic State group commander, Omar al-Shishani, has been killed in Iraq, the jihadist-linked Amaq agency said on Wednesday. 
 
The Pentagon announced in March that Shishani, known as Omar the Chechen, was believed to have died of injuries received in an air raid targeting his convoy in northeastern Syria, details at odds with Amaq&#39;s account. 
 
Citing a &quot;military source&quot;, Amaq said Shishani was killed &quot;in the town of Sharqat as he took part in repelling the military campaign on the city of Mosul&quot;, referring to the last IS-held city in Iraq. 
 
Iraqi forces are conducting operations to set the stage for a final push to Mosul, the country&#39;s second city that fell to IS in June 2014. 
 
Sharqat lies on the road north to Mosul, but Iraqi forces recently bypassed the area to recapture a key military base in the Qayyarah area farther north that the Pentagon said will be a &quot;springboard&quot; for the push toward the city. 
 
Amaq did not specify when Shishani was killed, but the loss of the commander is a blow to the jihadist group, which has suffered a string of setbacks in Iraq this year.&nbsp;In addition to Shishani, the US announced that it had killed IS deputy leader Abd ar-Rahman Mustafa al-Qaduli in March. 
 
Shishani, a fierce, battle-hardened warlord with roots in Georgia and a thick red beard, was one of the most notorious faces of IS.&nbsp;Shishani, whose nom de guerre means &quot;Omar the Chechen&quot;, was one of the IS leaders most wanted by Washington, which had put a $5 million bounty on his head. 
 
His exact rank was unclear, but a US official had branded him as &quot;equivalent of the secretary of defence&quot; for the jihadist group. 
Shishani came from the former Soviet state of Georgia&#39;s Pankisi Gorge region, which is populated mainly by ethnic Chechens. 
 
He fought as a Chechen rebel against Russian forces before joining the Georgian military in 2006, and fought Russian forces again in Georgia in 2008. 
 
He later resurfaced in northern Syria as the commander of a group of foreign fighters, and became a senior leader within IS. 
 
IS overran large areas north and west of Baghdad in 2014 but has since lost significant ground to Iraqi forces backed by US-led air strikes, training and other assistance. 
 
Baghdad declared victory in the city of Fallujah, west of Baghdad, at the end of last month, leaving Mosul as the sole Iraqi city held by IS. 
 
The Sunni extremist group has responded to the battlefield setbacks by striking civilians, particularly Shiites, and experts have warned there may be more bombings as the jihadists continue to lose ground. 
 
(AFP)

Omar al-Shishani was one of the IS leaders most wanted by Washington, which had a $5 million bounty on his head

A top Islamic State group commander, Omar al-Shishani, has been killed in Iraq, the jihadist-linked Amaq agency said on Wednesday. The Pentagon announced in March that Shishani, known as Omar the Chechen, was believed to have died of injuries received in an air raid targeting his convoy in northeastern Syria, details at odds with Amaq's account. Citing a "military source", Amaq said Shishani was killed "in the town of Sharqat as he took part in repelling the military campaign on the city of Mosul", referring to the last IS-held city in Iraq. Iraqi forces are conducting operations to set the stage for a final push to Mosul, the country's second city that fell to IS in June 2014. Sharqat lies on the road north to Mosul, but Iraqi forces recently bypassed the area to recapture a key military base in the Qayyarah area farther north that the Pentagon said will be a "springboard" for the push toward the city. Amaq did not specify when Shishani was killed, but the loss of the commander is a blow to the jihadist group, which has suffered a string of setbacks in Iraq this year. In addition to Shishani, the US announced that it had killed IS deputy leader Abd ar-Rahman Mustafa al-Qaduli in March. Shishani, a fierce, battle-hardened warlord with roots in Georgia and a thick red beard, was one of the most notorious faces of IS. Shishani, whose nom de guerre means "Omar the Chechen", was one of the IS leaders most wanted by Washington, which had put a $5 million bounty on his head. His exact rank was unclear, but a US official had branded him as "equivalent of the secretary of defence" for the jihadist group. Shishani came from the former Soviet state of Georgia's Pankisi Gorge region, which is populated mainly by ethnic Chechens. He fought as a Chechen rebel against Russian forces before joining the Georgian military in 2006, and fought Russian forces again in Georgia in 2008. He later resurfaced in northern Syria as the commander of a group of foreign fighters, and became a senior leader within IS. IS overran large areas north and west of Baghdad in 2014 but has since lost significant ground to Iraqi forces backed by US-led air strikes, training and other assistance. Baghdad declared victory in the city of Fallujah, west of Baghdad, at the end of last month, leaving Mosul as the sole Iraqi city held by IS. The Sunni extremist group has responded to the battlefield setbacks by striking civilians, particularly Shiites, and experts have warned there may be more bombings as the jihadists continue to lose ground. (AFP)

Top Islamic State commander Shishani killed

Congressional Republicans on Tuesday accused Hillary Clinton&#39;s state department of failing to protect four Americans killed in a 2012 attack in Libya in a final report that contained no major new revelations, but rekindled debate on the US presidential campaign trail. 
 
In an 800-page report that Democrats derided as a political vendetta, Republicans said Clinton, who served as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013 and is now the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, and her staff, showed a &quot;shameful&quot; lack of response to congressional investigators looking into the attacks on a US diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. 
 
The report, the culmination of a two-year investigation by a special congressional committee led by Republican representative Trey Gowdy, is likely to be the last official attempt to investigate the attack. Seven other congressional panels have also investigated the attack on the US diplomatic and CIA posts in Benghazi. 
 
The latest investigation has been used by Republicans to attack Clinton&rsquo;s national-security credentials. Opinion polls have shown Americans deeply split along partisan lines over the probe. 
 
Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has repeatedly charged that Clinton is personally responsible for the deaths of a US ambassador and three other Americans killed by militia groups in the September &nbsp;11, 2012 incident. 
 
Clinton&#39;s campaign dismissed the committee&#39;s report, saying it had not found anything that had not been discovered by previous congressional probes. White House press secretary Josh Earnest labelled the effort a &quot;political exercise.&quot; 
 
Clinton, speaking in Denver, said it was crucial to &quot;learn the right lessons&quot; from the Benghazi tragedy. 
 
&quot;No one has thought more about or lost more sleep over the lives that we lost - the four Americans - which was devastating,&quot; said Clinton. 
 
Trump waited until hours after the report&#39;s release to comment. &quot;Benghazi is just another Hillary Clinton failure,&quot; he said on Twitter. &quot;It just never seems to work the way it&#39;s supposed to with Clinton.&quot; 
 
Republican national committee chairman Reince Priebus said Clinton&#39;s actions as secretary of state were &quot;disqualifying.&quot; 
 
&quot;Hillary Clinton was in charge, knew the risks, and did nothing&quot; to protect personnel on the ground in Libya, he said. 
 
Professor Julian Zelizer, a political analyst at Princeton University, called the report &quot;old news&quot; but said that would not stop Trump from trying to exploit the issue going forward. &quot;A story like this, even though it seems familiar, can still serve to mobilise Republicans, and certainly Donald Trump will do that. He&rsquo;ll certainly try,&rdquo; Zelizer said. 
 
Rodell Mollineau, a Democratic strategist, said he doubted the report would influence undecided voters. &quot;Those who are willing to believe that there was wrongdoing on secretary Clinton&rsquo;s part were unlikely willing to vote for her in the first place,&quot; he said. 
 
Systematic security lapses&nbsp; 
 
At a news conference on Capitol Hill, Gowdy, chairman of the special congressional panel, said there was a disconnect between the violence unfolding in Benghazi and the perception among top Obama administration officials that &quot;the fighting had subsided&quot; at the US diplomatic compound. 
 
The committee&#39;s report faulted the state department for providing inadequate security for the US compound in Benghazi, state department officials and the CIA for failing to properly evaluate the threat to US personnel on the ground, and the Pentagon for not being in position to aid the Americans under siege. The report did not dispute assertions by the Obama administration that such a mission would have come too late to help the four who were killed. 
 
None of those conclusions, however, came as revelations. All had been reached by previous probes. 
 
The report also accused the White House of stonewalling the investigation, something aides to Obama have denied. 
 
Democrats on the Benghazi committee issued their own report a day before Tuesday&#39;s release, accusing Republicans of conducting an overzealous investigation. 
 
According to a website maintained by committee Democrats, the investigation cost more than $7.1 million, a figure that excludes money spent on investigations by the seven other congressional committees that investigated the attacks. 
 
The Gowdy committee investigation lasted 782 days, longer than congressional probes of Pearl Harbour, the Kennedy assassination, the Iran-Contra scandal and Hurricane Katrina. 
 
Since it was established in May 2014, the Gowdy committee has held four public hearings, according to its website, which said that it interviewed 107 witnesses, mostly behind closed doors, including 81 who never appeared before the other committees that investigated the attacks. It reviewed about 75,000 pages of previously unexamined documents. 
 
Clinton rebuffed charges 
 
Last October, Clinton, already a Democratic presidential candidate, calmly deflected harsh Republican criticism of her handling of the attack during a testy 11-hour hearing before the Gowdy committee. 
 
In testimony that stretched deep into the night, Clinton rejected Republican accusations that she ignored requests for security upgrades in Libya and misinformed the public about the cause of the attack. 
 
Clinton&#39;s appearance before the panel followed months of controversy about her use of a private home email server for her state department work, a disclosure that emerged in part because of the panel&#39;s demand to see her official records. 
 
A 2012 report by a government accountability review board faulted state department officials for providing &quot;grossly&quot; insufficient security in Benghazi, despite upgrade requests from ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and others in Libya. 
 
(Reuters)

The killing of an ambassador and three other Americans in a US compound in Benghazi has been used by Republicans to flay Clinton repeatedly

Congressional Republicans on Tuesday accused Hillary Clinton's state department of failing to protect four Americans killed in a 2012 attack in Libya in a final report that contained no major new revelations, but rekindled debate on the US presidential campaign trail. In an 800-page report that Democrats derided as a political vendetta, Republicans said Clinton, who served as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013 and is now the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, and her staff, showed a "shameful" lack of response to congressional investigators looking into the attacks on a US diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. The report, the culmination of a two-year investigation by a special congressional committee led by Republican representative Trey Gowdy, is likely to be the last official attempt to investigate the attack. Seven other congressional panels have also investigated the attack on the US diplomatic and CIA posts in Benghazi. The latest investigation has been used by Republicans to attack Clinton’s national-security credentials. Opinion polls have shown Americans deeply split along partisan lines over the probe. Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has repeatedly charged that Clinton is personally responsible for the deaths of a US ambassador and three other Americans killed by militia groups in the September 11, 2012 incident. Clinton's campaign dismissed the committee's report, saying it had not found anything that had not been discovered by previous congressional probes. White House press secretary Josh Earnest labelled the effort a "political exercise." Clinton, speaking in Denver, said it was crucial to "learn the right lessons" from the Benghazi tragedy. "No one has thought more about or lost more sleep over the lives that we lost - the four Americans - which was devastating," said Clinton. Trump waited until hours after the report's release to comment. "Benghazi is just another Hillary Clinton failure," he said on Twitter. "It just never seems to work the way it's supposed to with Clinton." Republican national committee chairman Reince Priebus said Clinton's actions as secretary of state were "disqualifying." "Hillary Clinton was in charge, knew the risks, and did nothing" to protect personnel on the ground in Libya, he said. Professor Julian Zelizer, a political analyst at Princeton University, called the report "old news" but said that would not stop Trump from trying to exploit the issue going forward. "A story like this, even though it seems familiar, can still serve to mobilise Republicans, and certainly Donald Trump will do that. He’ll certainly try,” Zelizer said. Rodell Mollineau, a Democratic strategist, said he doubted the report would influence undecided voters. "Those who are willing to believe that there was wrongdoing on secretary Clinton’s part were unlikely willing to vote for her in the first place," he said. Systematic security lapses At a news conference on Capitol Hill, Gowdy, chairman of the special congressional panel, said there was a disconnect between the violence unfolding in Benghazi and the perception among top Obama administration officials that "the fighting had subsided" at the US diplomatic compound. The committee's report faulted the state department for providing inadequate security for the US compound in Benghazi, state department officials and the CIA for failing to properly evaluate the threat to US personnel on the ground, and the Pentagon for not being in position to aid the Americans under siege. The report did not dispute assertions by the Obama administration that such a mission would have come too late to help the four who were killed. None of those conclusions, however, came as revelations. All had been reached by previous probes. The report also accused the White House of stonewalling the investigation, something aides to Obama have denied. Democrats on the Benghazi committee issued their own report a day before Tuesday's release, accusing Republicans of conducting an overzealous investigation. According to a website maintained by committee Democrats, the investigation cost more than $7.1 million, a figure that excludes money spent on investigations by the seven other congressional committees that investigated the attacks. The Gowdy committee investigation lasted 782 days, longer than congressional probes of Pearl Harbour, the Kennedy assassination, the Iran-Contra scandal and Hurricane Katrina. Since it was established in May 2014, the Gowdy committee has held four public hearings, according to its website, which said that it interviewed 107 witnesses, mostly behind closed doors, including 81 who never appeared before the other committees that investigated the attacks. It reviewed about 75,000 pages of previously unexamined documents. Clinton rebuffed charges Last October, Clinton, already a Democratic presidential candidate, calmly deflected harsh Republican criticism of her handling of the attack during a testy 11-hour hearing before the Gowdy committee. In testimony that stretched deep into the night, Clinton rejected Republican accusations that she ignored requests for security upgrades in Libya and misinformed the public about the cause of the attack. Clinton's appearance before the panel followed months of controversy about her use of a private home email server for her state department work, a disclosure that emerged in part because of the panel's demand to see her official records. A 2012 report by a government accountability review board faulted state department officials for providing "grossly" insufficient security in Benghazi, despite upgrade requests from ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and others in Libya. (Reuters)

Clinton's culpability over Benghazi attack debate reignites after panel's report

It&#39;s a paradox that has confounded many. The United States and India have a lot in common, not least their commitment to democratic values. Yet they remained estranged democracies at the best of times. This, in spite of the enormous goodwill among their peoples. In contrast, India&#39;s ties with Israel have been marked by good government-to-government relations even when their people-to-people ties haven&#39;t really taken off. As the joke went, for years on end, India treated Israel as a mistress to be hidden away. Under Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India&#39;s bilateral relations with Israel have come out of the closet but - and herein lies the paradox - its ties with the US are increasingly spoken about in whispers; a nudge there and a wink here. Now, one may ascribe it to caution on the part of New Delhi not to tweak the Dragon&#39;s tail but it is apparent to the discerning that India and the US are trying, perhaps too hard, not to show their hand. 
&nbsp; 
Although Modi told the US Congress that the India-US relationship has overcome the hesitations of history, India&#39;s faith in non-alignment remains undiminished, or so it is claimed. Modi himself made the point in a 26 May interview to The Wall Street Journal. In it he said: &quot;There is no reason to change India&rsquo;s non-alignment policy that is a legacy and has been in place. But this is true that today, unlike before, India is not standing in a corner. It is the world&rsquo;s largest democracy and fastest growing economy. We are acutely conscious of our responsibilities both in the region and internationally.&quot; India is a founding-member of the Non-Aligned Movement, which was established in 1961 primarily to allow countries to not be formally aligned with or against any power bloc. 
&nbsp; 
It would not be an exaggeration to say that India&#39;s fascination with non-alignment or in other words strategic autonomy has endured to this day. It reared its head most recently in 2012 after the India-US civil nuclear deal was signed. A document, titled &quot;Nonalignment 2.0: A foreign and strategic policy for India in the twenty first century&quot;, published by a privately funded think tank but co-authored by retired diplomats, among others, cautioned New Delhi against abandoning a principle that has stood the test of time and served India well over the decades. It sought to make the point that the demise of the Cold War opens up yet another minefield which India must negotiate and which will require it to manage complicated coalitions and opportunities in an environment that is not structurally settled. 
&nbsp; 
Modi amplified similar sentiments in the interview: &quot;There was an age when the world was divided into two camps. That is not true anymore. Today, the whole world is interdependent. Even if you look at the relationship between China and the US, there are areas where they have substantial differences but there are also areas where they have worked closely. That&rsquo;s the new way. If we want to ensure the success of this interdependent world, I think countries need to cooperate but at the same time we also need to ensure that there is a respect for international norms and international rules.&quot; 
&nbsp; 
That said, some of his critics insist that Modi seeks to bring India closer to the US than ever before, a process that was set in motion by former Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and consolidated by Manmohan Singh, another former Prime Minister. In their defence, the proponents of a robust India-US relationship say that India and the US are friends or partners, not allies. Here, what is unmistakable, and ironical, too, is that the rehabilitation of Modi from his pariah status of yore has run concurrently to the consummation of the India-US strategic partnership. Modi will get an opportunity to burnish his non-aligned credentials when he travels to Venezuela for the 17th Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) Summit in September. Vice President Aristobulo Isturiz of Venezuela is expected to visit India soon for talks on a range of bilateral, regional and global issues of interest to both countries. It should prove a litmus test for Modi, who has found it hard to shake off his, in his own words, &quot;a special friendship, a special wavelength&quot; with Obama, who, incidentally is accused of meddling in Venezuela&#39;s domestic affairs. 
&nbsp; 
US presidential hopeful Donald Trump has described Nato as a Cold War relic. Will Modi do the same to NAM? Watch this space.

New Delhi has moved far away from the policy of non-alignment but is in denial

It's a paradox that has confounded many. The United States and India have a lot in common, not least their commitment to democratic values. Yet they remained estranged democracies at the best of times. This, in spite of the enormous goodwill among their peoples. In contrast, India's ties with Israel have been marked by good government-to-government relations even when their people-to-people ties haven't really taken off. As the joke went, for years on end, India treated Israel as a mistress to be hidden away. Under Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India's bilateral relations with Israel have come out of the closet but - and herein lies the paradox - its ties with the US are increasingly spoken about in whispers; a nudge there and a wink here. Now, one may ascribe it to caution on the part of New Delhi not to tweak the Dragon's tail but it is apparent to the discerning that India and the US are trying, perhaps too hard, not to show their hand. Although Modi told the US Congress that the India-US relationship has overcome the hesitations of history, India's faith in non-alignment remains undiminished, or so it is claimed. Modi himself made the point in a 26 May interview to The Wall Street Journal. In it he said: "There is no reason to change India’s non-alignment policy that is a legacy and has been in place. But this is true that today, unlike before, India is not standing in a corner. It is the world’s largest democracy and fastest growing economy. We are acutely conscious of our responsibilities both in the region and internationally." India is a founding-member of the Non-Aligned Movement, which was established in 1961 primarily to allow countries to not be formally aligned with or against any power bloc. It would not be an exaggeration to say that India's fascination with non-alignment or in other words strategic autonomy has endured to this day. It reared its head most recently in 2012 after the India-US civil nuclear deal was signed. A document, titled "Nonalignment 2.0: A foreign and strategic policy for India in the twenty first century", published by a privately funded think tank but co-authored by retired diplomats, among others, cautioned New Delhi against abandoning a principle that has stood the test of time and served India well over the decades. It sought to make the point that the demise of the Cold War opens up yet another minefield which India must negotiate and which will require it to manage complicated coalitions and opportunities in an environment that is not structurally settled. Modi amplified similar sentiments in the interview: "There was an age when the world was divided into two camps. That is not true anymore. Today, the whole world is interdependent. Even if you look at the relationship between China and the US, there are areas where they have substantial differences but there are also areas where they have worked closely. That’s the new way. If we want to ensure the success of this interdependent world, I think countries need to cooperate but at the same time we also need to ensure that there is a respect for international norms and international rules." That said, some of his critics insist that Modi seeks to bring India closer to the US than ever before, a process that was set in motion by former Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and consolidated by Manmohan Singh, another former Prime Minister. In their defence, the proponents of a robust India-US relationship say that India and the US are friends or partners, not allies. Here, what is unmistakable, and ironical, too, is that the rehabilitation of Modi from his pariah status of yore has run concurrently to the consummation of the India-US strategic partnership. Modi will get an opportunity to burnish his non-aligned credentials when he travels to Venezuela for the 17th Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) Summit in September. Vice President Aristobulo Isturiz of Venezuela is expected to visit India soon for talks on a range of bilateral, regional and global issues of interest to both countries. It should prove a litmus test for Modi, who has found it hard to shake off his, in his own words, "a special friendship, a special wavelength" with Obama, who, incidentally is accused of meddling in Venezuela's domestic affairs. US presidential hopeful Donald Trump has described Nato as a Cold War relic. Will Modi do the same to NAM? Watch this space.

India and the US: In a relationship, but it?s complicated

The US Supreme Court today handed a victory to abortion rights advocates striking down a Texas law imposing strict regulations on abortion doctors and facilities that its critics contended were specifically designed to shut down clinics. 
 
The 5-3 ruling held that the Republican-backed 2013 law placed an undue burden on women exercising their constitutional right to end a pregnancy established in the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. The normally nine-justice court was one member short after the February 13 death of conservative justice Antonin Scalia who consistently opposed abortion in past rulings. 
 
Conservative justice Anthony Kennedy joined liberal members of the court in ruling that both key provisions of the law violate a woman&#39;s constitutional right to obtain an abortion. 
 
Liberal justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the court, said that the appeals court that upheld the law was wrong in its approach, noting that courts are required to &quot;consider the burdens a law imposes on abortion access together with the benefits that those laws confer.&quot; 
 
Deferring to state legislatures over &quot;questions of medical uncertainty is also inconsistent with this court&#39;s case law,&quot; Breyer added. 
 
Three conservative justices - Chief Justice John Roberts, justice Clarence Thomas and justice Samuel Alito - dissented. 
 
By setting a nationwide legal precedent that the two provisions in the Texas law were unconstitutional, the ruling imperils laws already in place in other states. 
 
Texas had said its law, passed by a Republican-led legislature and signed by a Republican governor in 2013, was aimed at protecting women&#39;s health. The abortion providers had said the regulations were medically unnecessary and intended to shut down clinics. Since the law was passed, the number of abortion clinics in Texas, the second-most-populous US state with about 27 million people, has dropped from 41 to 19. 
 
Democratic President Barack Obama&#39;s administration supported the challenge brought by the abortion providers. 
The Texas law required abortion doctors to have &quot;admitting privileges,&quot; a type of formal affiliation that can be hard to obtain, at a hospital within 30 miles (48 km) of the clinic so they can treat patients needing surgery or other critical care. 
 
The law also required clinic buildings to possess costly, hospital-grade facilities. These regulations covered numerous building features such as corridor width, the swinging motion of doors, floor tiles, parking spaces, elevator size, ventilation, electrical wiring, plumbing, floor tiling and even the angle that water flows from drinking fountains. 
 
&#39;Substantial obstacle&#39; 
 
&quot;We conclude that neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes,&quot; Breyer wrote in the ruling. &quot;Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a pre-viability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access, and each violates the federal Constitution.&quot; 
 
Alito said in his dissenting opinion that the court should have upheld the law on a legal technicality. He criticised the majority, saying that in striking down the law, the court &quot;simply disregards basic rules that apply in all other cases.&quot; 
 
The last time the justices decided a major abortion case was nine years ago when they ruled 5-4 to uphold a federal law banning a late-term abortion procedure. 
 
Abortion rights supporters hailed the ruling. 
 
Amy Hagstrom Miller, founder and CEO of Whole Woman&rsquo;s Health, which led the challenge to the Texas law, said, &quot;Every day Whole Woman&rsquo;s Health treats our patients with compassion, respect and dignity - and today the Supreme Court did the same. We&rsquo;re thrilled that today justice was served and our clinics stay open.&quot; 
 
Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton on Twitter called the ruling &quot;a victory for women in Texas and across America.&quot; 
 
&quot;This fight isn&#39;t over: The next president has to protect women&#39;s health. Women won&#39;t be &#39;punished&#39; for exercising their basic rights,&quot; she said, a dig at presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, who once suggested women who get illegal abortions should face &quot;some sort of punishment.&quot; The presidential election is November 8. 
 
Abortion opponents denounced the ruling. 
 
&quot;It&#39;s exceedingly unfortunate that the court has taken the ability to protect women&rsquo;s health out of the hands of Texas citizens and their duly-elected representatives,&quot; Texas attorney general Ken Paxton, a Republican, said in a statement. 
 
Republican Texas lieutenant governor Dan Patrick added that abortion clinics are now &quot;free to ignore these basic safety standards and continue practicing under substandard conditions. By its ruling, the court held that the ability of abortion clinics to remain open &ndash; even under substandard conditions &ndash;outweighs the state&rsquo;s ability to put women&rsquo;s health and safety first.&quot; 
 
Some US states have pursued a variety of restrictions on abortion, including banning certain types of procedures, prohibiting it after a certain number of weeks of gestation, requiring parental permission for girls until a certain age, imposing waiting periods or mandatory counseling, and others. 
 
Americans remain closely divided over whether abortion should be legal. In a Reuters/Ipso online poll involving 6,769 US adults conducted from June 3 to June 22, 47 per cent of respondents said abortion generally should be legal and 42 per cent said it generally should be illegal. 
 
Views on abortion in the United States have changed very little over the decades, according to historical polling data. 
 
(Reuters)

The judges said the laws restricted access to abortion clinics, while rights activists said they were aimed at shutting them down

The US Supreme Court today handed a victory to abortion rights advocates striking down a Texas law imposing strict regulations on abortion doctors and facilities that its critics contended were specifically designed to shut down clinics. The 5-3 ruling held that the Republican-backed 2013 law placed an undue burden on women exercising their constitutional right to end a pregnancy established in the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. The normally nine-justice court was one member short after the February 13 death of conservative justice Antonin Scalia who consistently opposed abortion in past rulings. Conservative justice Anthony Kennedy joined liberal members of the court in ruling that both key provisions of the law violate a woman's constitutional right to obtain an abortion. Liberal justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the court, said that the appeals court that upheld the law was wrong in its approach, noting that courts are required to "consider the burdens a law imposes on abortion access together with the benefits that those laws confer." Deferring to state legislatures over "questions of medical uncertainty is also inconsistent with this court's case law," Breyer added. Three conservative justices - Chief Justice John Roberts, justice Clarence Thomas and justice Samuel Alito - dissented. By setting a nationwide legal precedent that the two provisions in the Texas law were unconstitutional, the ruling imperils laws already in place in other states. Texas had said its law, passed by a Republican-led legislature and signed by a Republican governor in 2013, was aimed at protecting women's health. The abortion providers had said the regulations were medically unnecessary and intended to shut down clinics. Since the law was passed, the number of abortion clinics in Texas, the second-most-populous US state with about 27 million people, has dropped from 41 to 19. Democratic President Barack Obama's administration supported the challenge brought by the abortion providers. The Texas law required abortion doctors to have "admitting privileges," a type of formal affiliation that can be hard to obtain, at a hospital within 30 miles (48 km) of the clinic so they can treat patients needing surgery or other critical care. The law also required clinic buildings to possess costly, hospital-grade facilities. These regulations covered numerous building features such as corridor width, the swinging motion of doors, floor tiles, parking spaces, elevator size, ventilation, electrical wiring, plumbing, floor tiling and even the angle that water flows from drinking fountains. 'Substantial obstacle' "We conclude that neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes," Breyer wrote in the ruling. "Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a pre-viability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access, and each violates the federal Constitution." Alito said in his dissenting opinion that the court should have upheld the law on a legal technicality. He criticised the majority, saying that in striking down the law, the court "simply disregards basic rules that apply in all other cases." The last time the justices decided a major abortion case was nine years ago when they ruled 5-4 to uphold a federal law banning a late-term abortion procedure. Abortion rights supporters hailed the ruling. Amy Hagstrom Miller, founder and CEO of Whole Woman’s Health, which led the challenge to the Texas law, said, "Every day Whole Woman’s Health treats our patients with compassion, respect and dignity - and today the Supreme Court did the same. We’re thrilled that today justice was served and our clinics stay open." Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton on Twitter called the ruling "a victory for women in Texas and across America." "This fight isn't over: The next president has to protect women's health. Women won't be 'punished' for exercising their basic rights," she said, a dig at presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, who once suggested women who get illegal abortions should face "some sort of punishment." The presidential election is November 8. Abortion opponents denounced the ruling. "It's exceedingly unfortunate that the court has taken the ability to protect women’s health out of the hands of Texas citizens and their duly-elected representatives," Texas attorney general Ken Paxton, a Republican, said in a statement. Republican Texas lieutenant governor Dan Patrick added that abortion clinics are now "free to ignore these basic safety standards and continue practicing under substandard conditions. By its ruling, the court held that the ability of abortion clinics to remain open – even under substandard conditions –outweighs the state’s ability to put women’s health and safety first." Some US states have pursued a variety of restrictions on abortion, including banning certain types of procedures, prohibiting it after a certain number of weeks of gestation, requiring parental permission for girls until a certain age, imposing waiting periods or mandatory counseling, and others. Americans remain closely divided over whether abortion should be legal. In a Reuters/Ipso online poll involving 6,769 US adults conducted from June 3 to June 22, 47 per cent of respondents said abortion generally should be legal and 42 per cent said it generally should be illegal. Views on abortion in the United States have changed very little over the decades, according to historical polling data. (Reuters)

US Supreme Court stands up for women's right to abortion, strikes down restrictive Texas laws

Top US diplomat John Kerry will fly to Brussels and London on Monday for talks with Washington&#39;s key allies in the aftermath of Britain&#39;s vote to leave the European Union. 
 
US officials travelling to Rome with the secretary of state told reporters on the flight that two stops had been added to his European itinerary at the last moment. 
 
&quot;Tomorrow we&#39;ll go to Brussels and then on to London,&quot; one official said. 
 
Washington was dismayed last week when British voters chose to leave the European Union, a decision that triggered global economic uncertainty and fears other EU members will follow suit. 
 
President Barack Obama had made clear his concern about the Brexit referendum, and now US officials are scrambling to try to stop the political crisis harming Western unity. 
 
Kerry arrived in Rome today on a planned visit to have lunch with Foreign Minister Paolo Gentiloni and a working dinner with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. 
 
But officials on his flight said that on Monday he would fly on to the EU headquarters in Brussels for crisis talks with EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini. 
 
Mogherini had been expected to meet Kerry in Rome today, but she was busy dealing with the fallout of the dramatic vote, which stunned European and world leaders. 
 
From Brussels Kerry will continue to London to see Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond and other officials from outgoing British Prime Minister David Cameron`s government. 
 
The two senior diplomats are expected to hold a joint news conference before Kerry leaves to return to Washington. 
 
Obama and Kerry have been at pains to insist the vaunted &quot;special relationship&quot; between Washington and London will survive what US officials view as the Brexit debacle.But Washington foreign policy experts are all but unanimous in assessing that the White House will increasingly turn to core EU allies to defend its interests on the continent. 
 
Obama himself, on a visit to London last month, warned British voters that their nation would go &quot;to the back of the queue&quot; for a US trade deal if they voted &quot;out.&quot; 
 
US officials are also keen to help London`s divorce from Brussels go through smoothly without further inflicting further damage on skittish world financial markets. 
 
But they, like many EU capitals, are also concerned not to allow Brexit to serve as an inspiration for eurosceptic forces in other members such as Italy or The Netherlands. 
 
The London visit will be the first by a senior US official since Thursday`s dramatic referendum, when voters demanded Britain leave the world`s richest trading bloc.&nbsp; 
 
Kerry&#39;s trip had originally been planned as an opportunity to meet Netanyahu and discuss regional security and the stalled Israel-Palestinian peace process. 
 
But US officials played down the chance of any concrete progress, insisting that the pair meet regularly and that no new initiative would be on the table.&nbsp; 
 
(AFP)

London visit will be the first by John Kerry after the referendum when voters demanded Britain leave the world's richest trading bloc

Top US diplomat John Kerry will fly to Brussels and London on Monday for talks with Washington's key allies in the aftermath of Britain's vote to leave the European Union. US officials travelling to Rome with the secretary of state told reporters on the flight that two stops had been added to his European itinerary at the last moment. "Tomorrow we'll go to Brussels and then on to London," one official said. Washington was dismayed last week when British voters chose to leave the European Union, a decision that triggered global economic uncertainty and fears other EU members will follow suit. President Barack Obama had made clear his concern about the Brexit referendum, and now US officials are scrambling to try to stop the political crisis harming Western unity. Kerry arrived in Rome today on a planned visit to have lunch with Foreign Minister Paolo Gentiloni and a working dinner with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But officials on his flight said that on Monday he would fly on to the EU headquarters in Brussels for crisis talks with EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini. Mogherini had been expected to meet Kerry in Rome today, but she was busy dealing with the fallout of the dramatic vote, which stunned European and world leaders. From Brussels Kerry will continue to London to see Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond and other officials from outgoing British Prime Minister David Cameron`s government. The two senior diplomats are expected to hold a joint news conference before Kerry leaves to return to Washington. Obama and Kerry have been at pains to insist the vaunted "special relationship" between Washington and London will survive what US officials view as the Brexit debacle.But Washington foreign policy experts are all but unanimous in assessing that the White House will increasingly turn to core EU allies to defend its interests on the continent. Obama himself, on a visit to London last month, warned British voters that their nation would go "to the back of the queue" for a US trade deal if they voted "out." US officials are also keen to help London`s divorce from Brussels go through smoothly without further inflicting further damage on skittish world financial markets. But they, like many EU capitals, are also concerned not to allow Brexit to serve as an inspiration for eurosceptic forces in other members such as Italy or The Netherlands. The London visit will be the first by a senior US official since Thursday`s dramatic referendum, when voters demanded Britain leave the world`s richest trading bloc. Kerry's trip had originally been planned as an opportunity to meet Netanyahu and discuss regional security and the stalled Israel-Palestinian peace process. But US officials played down the chance of any concrete progress, insisting that the pair meet regularly and that no new initiative would be on the table. (AFP)

Top US envoy Kerry heads to Britain amid Brexit crisis

India has agreed to work towards joining the Paris Agreement on climate change this year, India and the United States said on Tuesday, pushing the international fight to curb global warming ahead.

President Barack Obama welcomed Indian Prime Minister Narendra&nbsp;Modi&nbsp;to the White House for their seventh meeting since&nbsp;Modi&nbsp;took office in 2014, underscoring the warm relationship between the leaders and the world&#39;s two largest democracies.&nbsp;

&quot;We discussed how we can, as quickly as possible, bring the Paris Agreement into force,&quot; Obama said. Climate change is a legacy issue for the US president who leaves office in January.India&#39;s potential entrance into the agreement this year would help accelerate its enactment, perhaps years ahead of schedule. India is the world&rsquo;s third-largest greenhouse gas emitter after China and the United States.

Obama and&nbsp;Modi&nbsp;agreed to work together on an &quot;ambitious&quot; amendment to an international pact known as the Montreal Protocol to reduce hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs),&nbsp;a&nbsp;potent greenhouse gas.

The two countries said India would take steps to join the Paris agreement this year.

&quot;India and the United States recognise the urgency of climate change and share the goal of enabling entry into force of the Paris Agreement as early as possible,&quot; the joint statement said.

&quot;The United States reaffirms its commitment to join the agreement as soon as possible this year. India similarly has begun its processes to work toward this shared objective.&quot;

The agreement, forged in 2015, will take effect when at least 55 countries representing 55 per cent of global emissions ratify it. By late last month 17 small countries had ratified it, according to the United Nations, and many others including the United States and China have pledged to do so in 2016.

Environmental groups had hoped&nbsp;Modi&nbsp;would say that India was ready to ratify the agreement during his Washington trip.

&ldquo;With India now on board, a growing chorus&nbsp;of countries are seeking to bring the Paris Agreement into full effect as soon as possible,&quot;&nbsp;said Andrew Steer, president of the World Resources Institute.&nbsp;

Environmental groups had hoped?Modi?would say that India was ready to ratify the agreement during his Washington trip

India has agreed to work towards joining the Paris Agreement on climate change this year, India and the United States said on Tuesday, pushing the international fight to curb global warming ahead. President Barack Obama welcomed Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to the White House for their seventh meeting since Modi took office in 2014, underscoring the warm relationship between the leaders and the world's two largest democracies. "We discussed how we can, as quickly as possible, bring the Paris Agreement into force," Obama said. Climate change is a legacy issue for the US president who leaves office in January.India's potential entrance into the agreement this year would help accelerate its enactment, perhaps years ahead of schedule. India is the world’s third-largest greenhouse gas emitter after China and the United States. Obama and Modi agreed to work together on an "ambitious" amendment to an international pact known as the Montreal Protocol to reduce hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), a potent greenhouse gas. The two countries said India would take steps to join the Paris agreement this year. "India and the United States recognise the urgency of climate change and share the goal of enabling entry into force of the Paris Agreement as early as possible," the joint statement said. "The United States reaffirms its commitment to join the agreement as soon as possible this year. India similarly has begun its processes to work toward this shared objective." The agreement, forged in 2015, will take effect when at least 55 countries representing 55 per cent of global emissions ratify it. By late last month 17 small countries had ratified it, according to the United Nations, and many others including the United States and China have pledged to do so in 2016. Environmental groups had hoped Modi would say that India was ready to ratify the agreement during his Washington trip. “With India now on board, a growing chorus of countries are seeking to bring the Paris Agreement into full effect as soon as possible," said Andrew Steer, president of the World Resources Institute.

In boost to Paris climate pact, India says it aims to join this year

washington

Washington, News on Washington, stories on Washington, articles on Washington, Washington stories at Wion, Washington news, Washington latest news