As the Nov. 5 election approaches, parents of fentanyl victims are divided on which party can effectively address the drug epidemic and have emerged as powerful voices on the campaign trail, our colleague David Ovalle reports. Candidates, particularly in swing states, have “got to have a bereaved parent from fentanyl to have any street cred on the issue,” said Greg Swan, co-founder of Fentanyl Fathers, who has met with candidates of both parties this campaign season. Political observers say Republicans have effectively harnessed the voices of parents who resonate with Trump’s tough talk, many of whom have taken to social media to echo his promises to tighten border security and impose harsher penalties on fentanyl traffickers. Others who support Harris argue that many fentanyl families have been “poisoned by the rhetoric” of the former president focusing on punitive measures that lead to incarceration rather than expanding proven public health strategies. Their voices underscore the urgency of a public health crisis that has become inextricably intertwined with border security — a glaring political vulnerability for Democrats — and illustrate deep, often polarizing frustration over a problem that has spanned administrations from both parties. Trump touts Kennedy’s health plans at event where speakers lob racist insults Sunday, at a Trump rally in Madison Square Garden, the speakers included failed presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Trump told attendees at the New York event that as president he would give Kennedy — a prominent promoter of false conspiracy theories about vaccines — significant policy input on food and medicine, The Post’s Hannah Knowles and Isaac Arnsdorf report. “I’m going to let him go wild on health,” Trump said. “I’m going to let him go wild on the food. I’ve got to let him go wild on medicines.” The rally generated headlines, though, for warm-up comedian Tony Hinchcliffe’s description of Puerto Rico as an “island of garbage,” a comment the Trump campaign disavowed. In other news from the campaign trail … Former first lady Michelle Obama delivered an impassioned plea to voters Saturday, urging men in particular to take the lives of women “seriously” when they head to the polls in November, The Post’s Tyler Pager reports. In remarks that were both sweeping and intimate, Obama sought to move the conversation beyond just reproductive rights, arguing that all Americans will suffer if Trump is reelected. In doing so, she highlighted challenges that women may encounter at various stages — “an unexpected lump, an abnormal Pap smear or mammogram, an infection, a blockage” — to underscore her argument to defeat him. “A vote for him is a vote against us, against our health, against our worth,” Obama told the crowd of more than 7,000 at a rally for Harris in Michigan. “We have to use our voices to make these choices clear to the men that we love.” Meanwhile … A mysterious new super PAC has spent at least $20 million to help elect Trump by linking his abortion views with those of the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, The Post’s Patrick Svitek reports. The group, RBG PAC, was formed recently enough that it won’t have to publicize its donors until after the election, but it told the Federal Election Commission on Friday that it was spending the eight-figure sum on digital ads, text messages and mail. Its bio on X states, “RBG believed abortion laws should be decided by the states, not the federal gov’t. Trump also doesn’t support a federal abortion ban. Great minds think alike.” Key context: Antiabortion activists have previously cited Ginsburg’s criticism of the legal reasoning behind Roe v. Wade to suggest she believed the issue should be left to the states. In reality, Ginsburg was a longtime abortion rights advocate, but had argued that a woman’s right to end a pregnancy should be grounded in the Constitution’s equal protection clause, not privacy. Ginsburg’s granddaughter, Clara Spera, criticized the PAC in a statement, saying the group “has no connection to the Ginsburg family and is an affront to my late grandmother’s legacy.” |