ReportWire

Tag: abortion rights

  • 19th century chastity law endangers 21st century abortion medicine | CNN Politics

    19th century chastity law endangers 21st century abortion medicine | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]

    A version of this story appears in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.



    CNN
     — 

    The Wild West of the post-Roe v. Wade legal landscape is focused on a lone federal judge in Amarillo, Texas, who could use a 19th century law to limit access to abortion medication for every American woman.

    The judge, 45-year-old Matthew Kacsmaryk, held a hearing Wednesday about whether he should impose a preliminary injunction that would require the US Food and Drug Administration to withdraw or suspend its approval of the drug, mifepristone, while a larger case progresses.

    Mifepristone is taken along with another drug, misoprostol, as part of the two-step medication abortion process. Misoprostol can be prescribed on its own, but it is considered less effective.

    Kacsmaryk, who sounded open to the idea of restricting access to mifepristone, will have to agree with some or all of these general points raised if he decides to issue an injunction:

    • That doctors who don’t perform abortions and live in Texas, where abortions are already banned, are harmed by abortions conducted elsewhere.
    • That an FDA approval conducted over the course of four years and finalized 23 years ago was so flawed that it should be rescinded.
    • That a single federal judge in Amarillo should do what no federal judge has ever done and unilaterally rescind an FDA approval.
    • That a drug, which studies suggest is on par with ibuprofen in terms of safety, is actually so harmful it should be reconsidered by the FDA.

    CNN’s Tierney Sneed wrote a longer list of takeaways from the hearing, where anti-abortion rights doctors and activist groups teed up their lawsuit in Kacsmaryk’s courtroom to further limit access to abortion care in the US.

    It’s important to note that no matter what Kacsmaryk does, it will be appealed up through the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals and potentially to the Supreme Court.

    But perhaps the most incredible question Kacsmaryk faces is whether an 1870s chastity law named for an anti-vice crusader, Anthony Comstock, should be resuscitated and applied to the medicine that now accounts for a majority of US abortions.

    Comstock operated the New York Society for the Suppression of Vice and was a special agent of the US Postal Service. He was known for seizing contraband like contraceptives and condoms in the name of rooting out obscenity, according to the New York Historical Society.

    Mary Ziegler, a law professor at the University of California, Davis who has written about the Comstock Act for CNN Opinion, described Comstock as being “obsessed by what he saw as the decaying morals of a country preoccupied with sex.”

    Ziegler writes:

    The law he inspired barred not just the mailing of “obscene books” but also birth control and abortion drugs and devices. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the Comstock Act was used to prohibit the mailing of many literary classics, from Geoffrey Chaucer’s “The Canterbury Tales” to works by James Joyce and Walt Whitman.

    Comstock himself proudly carried a gun and scoured the mail for cases involving information about abortion or contraception, even if a doctor provided it. By Comstock’s standard, the law was a great success: he claimed to have destroyed 15 tons of books, arrested more than 4,000 people and driven at least 15 people to suicide.

    While Congress has acted to relax elements of the Comstock Act, including to allow the mailing of contraceptives, it is still technically on the books with regard to the mailing of anything that could be used for an abortion.

    During the Covid-19 pandemic, the FDA dropped its requirement that a person obtain mifepristone in person. A prescription is still required.

    In December, the Department of Justice notified the US Postal Service that the Comstock Act did not apply as long as “the sender lacks the intent that the recipient of the drugs will use them unlawfully.”

    The FDA permanently removed the in-person requirement in January, hoping to guarantee more access to the medication after the Supreme Court ended Roe v. Wade last June.

    The group that brought the Texas lawsuit, the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, wants to reapply the Comstock Act and restrict the mailing of abortion medication.

    The FDA’s already exhaustive and detailed drug approval process was especially scrutinized for mifepristone, which was more commonly known as part of the RU-486 regimen when it became available to American women at the turn of the century.

    It had been available in Europe for a dozen years before that. Here’s CNN’s report from September 2000.

    That the drug works safely as a means of abortion is not really up for dispute as a medical matter after all that time, according to CNN’s Jen Christensen, who explains more about the medication in this article about mifepristone.

    Another CNN data analysis suggests mifepristone is safer than penicillin and Viagra.

    Mifepristone has a death rate of 0.0005% – five deaths for every 1 million people in the US who used it. Penicillin’s death rate is four times greater. Viagra’s is 10 times greater, according to the analysis by CNN’s Annette Choi and Will Mullery.

    Kacsmaryk had a long history of challenging laws providing greater access to reproductive rights before he became a federal judge. While he has promised to be an impartial judge, every Democrat and one Republican, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, opposed his nomination in 2019.

    Now Kacsmaryk is the only federal judge at the courthouse in Amarillo, which almost guarantees he hears cases filed there.

    So it may be no coincidence that the group challenging use of mifepristone set up an outpost months before filing its lawsuit. The group is based in Tennessee, but one of the doctors named as a plaintiff in the lawsuit practices near Amarillo.

    However one feels about judicial shopping and whether that happened in this case, the word appears to be out that a conservative judge is alone in Amarillo and open for business.

    According to a CNN profile, Kacsmaryk has also put on hold Biden administration policies related to immigration and overseen cases related to vaccine requirements and gender identity. Last December, he halted a federal program in Texas that allowed minors to get birth control without their parents’ consent.

    That suit regarding the birth control program established in 1970 was brought by a Texas father “raising each of his daughters in accordance with Christian teaching on matters of sexuality,” which he said forbids premarital sex.

    Kacsmaryk agreed, even citing the Catechism of the Catholic Church in his decision to say “contraception (just like abortion) violates traditional tenets of many faiths, including the Christian faith Plaintiff practices.”

    His sister described him to The Washington Post as an anti-abortion rights activist and detailed her own decision to give a child up for adoption rather than seek an abortion.

    “He’s very passionate about the fact that you can’t preach pro-life and do nothing,” Jennifer Griffith told the Post. “We both hold the stance of you have to do something. You can’t not.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Takeaways from the Texas hearing on medication abortion drugs | CNN Politics

    Takeaways from the Texas hearing on medication abortion drugs | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Amarillo, Texas
    CNN
     — 

    Over the course of about four hours of arguments, a federal judge in Texas asked questions that suggested he is seriously considering undoing the US Food and Drug Administration’s approval of a medication abortion drug and the agency’s moves to relax the rules around its use.

    But the judge, US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, also indicated he was thinking through scenarios in which he could keep the drug’s 2000 approval intact while blocking other FDA rules.

    Anti-abortion doctors and medical associations are seeking a preliminary injunction that would require the FDA to withdraw or suspend its approval of the drug, mifepristone, and that would block the agency’s more recent regulatory changes making the pills more accessible.

    Here are takeaways from the hearing:

    Kacsmaryk showed a particular interest in the arguments by the abortion opponents that the FDA approved mifepristone in an unlawful way.

    He zeroed in on a claim by the abortion foes that the studies that the FDA looked at when deciding whether to approve the drug did not match the conditions under which the agency allows it to be administered.

    Erik Baptist, attorney for the challengers, alleged that those studies all featured patients who received ultrasounds before being treated with the drug, which is not among the FDA’s requirements for prescribing abortion pills. Baptist accused the FDA of “examining oranges and declaring apples to be safe.”

    Kacsmaryk returned to that “apples to oranges” argument several times throughout the hearing.

    Justice Department attorney Daniel Schwei defended the FDA’s approach, arguing that the relevant law gives the FDA discretion to determine what studies are adequate for approving a drug’s safety. He also said the challengers’ claims were factually flawed, because the FDA also was looking at studies where the patients did not receive an ultrasound.

    Kacsmaryk was similarly focused on a claim by the plaintiffs that the FDA violated the law in the special, accelerated process that it used to approve mifepristone in 2000.

    At one point the judge revealed in the hearing that he had downloaded a list of the other drugs the FDA had approved through the process. He ticked through the list of drugs, which were made up mostly of treatments for HIV and cancer, and he asked the Justice Department for its “best argument” for why mifepristone fit into the list.

    One of the sharpest questions from the judge was whether the anti-abortion activists could point to another analogous case when a court intervened in the way he is being asked to intervene here.

    Baptist conceded there was none and blamed FDA delays in addressing citizen petitions and challenges. Later in the hearing, Baptist raised other times the FDA had suspended or withdrawn drugs based on court cases in other contexts, arguing those cases showed that Kascmaryk had the authority to grant the plaintiffs’ request.

    Attorneys for the defendants – which include both the FDA and a drug company that manufactures mifepristone and intervened in the case – pushed back on those examples. They said that the plaintiffs were relying on patent cases, where the dispute was between a brand name drug and a generic counterpart, and those examples were not analogous here.

    The medication abortion lawsuit targets actions the FDA took around medication abortion pills before last summer’s Supreme Court reversal of Roe v. Wade’s abortion rights protections.

    While that decision, known as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, didn’t play a major role in Wednesday’s arguments, the judge referenced it and suggested it could have an impact on his thinking about the case.

    He brought up Dobbs early on in the hearing and raised it specifically in connection with a friend of the court brief filed by 22 GOP-led states supporting the challengers.

    The judge noted that the red states’ brief argued that the FDA’s actions were infringing on their state laws concerning abortion pills.

    He asked Erin Hawley, an attorney for the challengers, whether Dobbs was an “intervening event” that has “changed the landscape” around the relationship between state and federal government concerning abortion policy.

    Hawley agreed, calling it a “sea change.”

    If Kacsmaryk has any sore feelings over the blow up around his efforts to keep Wednesday’s hearing plans quiet, he didn’t show them at the proceedings.

    When questioning both sides of the case, Kacsmaryk had a restrained, straight-forward tone. He had occasional follow-up questions for the plaintiffs, but did not aggressively push back on their arguments. The substance of his questions for the FDA’s defenders was more skeptical, but he kept with the measured approach in his questioning, and avoided any pushiness when grilling the government and the drug company about the approval process.

    At the end of the hearing, he thanked the parties, as well as those who filed dozens of friend of the courts briefs, for their “superb” briefing. He also acknowledged the logistical hurdles the lawyers at the hearing went through to get to his courthouse in Amarillo, which is a several hours’ drive from Texas’ biggest cities.

    Left unmentioned by the judge was the fact that he tried to delay the announcement of the hearing until the evening before, which would have made it difficult for members of the public and the media to attend Wednesday’s proceedings. When there was blowback to The Washington Post reporting about his plan – laid out in a private teleconference with attorneys where he pointed to death threats and harassment that had been directed to the courthouse staff – he announced the hearing on Monday.

    The courtroom was open to the public, but only with limited seating: 19 seats for reporters and 19 for members of the public. By 6 a.m. CT Wednesday there were already lines outside the courtroom to claim those seats. Those attendees were not allowed to bring electronics in with them, and if they left the courthouse, they were not allowed back in.

    Kacsmaryk warned at the beginning of the hearing that anyone who disrupted the proceedings would be immediately removed without warning. But there were no such disruptions.

    Kacsmaryk wrapped up the hearing without any explicit timeline for when he’ll rule, telling the parties he would issue an order and opinion “as soon as possible.”

    While he was arguing, Schwei, the DOJ attorney, requested that the judge – if he were to rule against the FDA – to immediately put that ruling on pause so it could be appealed. The judge stopped short of promising an automatic stay in the event of an adverse ruling, but he acknowledged he understood what DOJ was asking for.

    An appeal would first go to a panel of three judges of the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals, arguably the most conservative appeals court in the country. The panel’s decision could then be appealed either to the full 5th Circuit or the US Supreme Court.

    Beyond these procedural questions, Kacsmaryk seemed to be grappling with the practical impact of a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs. He asked plaintiffs’ attorneys, the DOJ lawyers and the attorneys for the drug company Danco whether it would be possible for him to block some but not all of the FDA actions the challengers were targeting. He returned to the question again when the plaintiffs were back up for the rebuttal.

    He also pressed Baptist, the attorney for the abortion opponents, on whether the plaintiffs were seeking an order that the FDA begin the withdrawal of the drug – a process that would take months – or if they thought the judge could directly take if off the market.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • First on CNN: Kamala Harris to make first trip to Iowa since becoming vice president | CNN Politics

    First on CNN: Kamala Harris to make first trip to Iowa since becoming vice president | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Vice President Kamala Harris on Thursday will make her first trip to Iowa since taking office for an abortion rights event, a White House official told CNN.

    Harris will travel to Des Moines to convene a roundtable with local leaders about the fight to protect reproductive rights.

    The last-minute, high-profile trip comes after flurry of activity from Republicans presidential hopefuls who’ve descended on the early caucus state, like former President and current candidate Donald Trump and potential 2024 GOP candidate Ron DeSantis. GOP politicians have begun to woo caucus-goers who favor personal politicking, as the state is set to play its traditional role in kicking off the party’s 2024 nominating contest.

    President Joe Biden, who is expected to launch a 2024 reelection bid, has been absent from the state after urging national Democrats to replace Iowa first-in-the-nation caucuses with South Carolina, a primary state where the majority of Democratic voters are Black, which propelled him to the nomination in 2020. The Democratic National Committee adopted the president’s changes last month but the vice president’s visit to Iowa underscores how Democrats do not intend to fully abandon the state, despite its Republican-leaning trends.

    Harris’ trip will also come a day after a federal judge overseeing a challenge to the federal government’s approval of a medication abortion drug will hold a hearing in the case. The vice president has become the Biden administration’s lead messenger on the issue after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last summer, holding that there is no longer a federal constitutional right to an abortion.

    This week, she slammed attacks on medication abortion and warned that preventing doctors from prescribing mifepristone, the first drug in the medication abortion process, could have wider ramifications.

    “But if extremists and politicians can override FDA approval and remove one medication from the shelves – in this case, abortion medication – one must ask: What medication is next?” Harris said in a recent press call with local media and coalition outlets.

    Harris has held dozens of events on access to abortion care since last year, meeting with activists and state lawmakers about abortion rights in deep red and swing states.

    Recently, Iowa State House Republicans introduced a bill that would ban all abortions in the state, determining that life begins at conception. Iowa’s Supreme Court ruled last year that the state Constitution does not protect the right to an abortion, clearing the way for the state’s Republican legislative majority to potentially enact stricter abortion measures.

    This story has been updated with additional details.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Washington Post: Judge keeps plans for medication abortion hearing out of public view for now | CNN Politics

    Washington Post: Judge keeps plans for medication abortion hearing out of public view for now | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A federal judge has set a hearing for next week in a blockbuster medication abortion case in Texas but took a series of highly unusual steps to delay making the public aware that such a hearing was being scheduled, The Washington Post reported.

    US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who is hearing the case, held a private call Friday with the case’s lawyers and scheduled the hearing for Wednesday, according to the Post. The call was not publicly noticed on the case’s docket, nor did the judge issue a public order announcing that Wednesday’s hearing had been scheduled. The case is not under seal.

    In the case, anti-abortion doctors are asking the judge – an appointee of former President Donald Trump – to undo the federal government’s 2000 approval of pills used to terminate a pregnancy. Such a move could cut off access nationwide to the most common method of abortion.

    Kacsmaryk told the lawyers on the call, according to the newspaper, that he would hold off on publicly announcing the Wednesday hearing until Tuesday evening, so as to limit disruptions and potential protests at the proceeding. He also asked that the attorneys on the call – which reportedly included the Justice Department’s lawyers who are defending the drug’s approval, lawyers for the anti-abortion activists who are challenging it, and lawyers for a company that distributes the drug and has intervened in the case – not to publicize the hearing plans before then.

    The judge’s efforts to limit transparency around Wednesday’s hearing comes in a case that has major implications for access to abortion and is arguably the biggest legal battle over the procedure since the Supreme Court overturned nationwide abortion protections in a ruling last June.

    Voicemails left by CNN on Sunday morning with the court’s clerk’s office and with Kacsmaryk’s chambers about the Post’s Saturday night report were not immediately returned.

    The case is unfolding in Amarillo – a far-flung court division in Texas’ northern panhandle that is a several hours’ drive from the state’s biggest cities and has only limited direct flight routes. Federal judicial proceedings typically play out in public.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Michigan Senate votes to repeal 1931 abortion ban | CNN Politics

    Michigan Senate votes to repeal 1931 abortion ban | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The Michigan state Senate on Wednesday voted to repeal the state’s 1931 abortion ban as well as its sentencing guidelines.

    The bills were passed 20-18, along party lines in the Democratic-controlled Senate after passing the House last week and were sent to Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer for her signature. Democrats control the governor’s office and the state legislature for the first time in four decades.

    Whitmer has been a vocal supporter of abortion rights, using the issue as a driving force in her 2022 reelection campaign. The governor filed a lawsuit against several county prosecutors in her state last year in an attempt to prevent the 1931 ban from taking effect after the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

    The Michigan law, which was invalidated by the 1973 high court decision but remained on the state’s books, prohibits abortions even in cases of rape or incest, except to preserve the woman’s life.

    Michigan state Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks previously told CNN one of the first priorities of the new legislature would be to repeal the ban that was put back in play after the Supreme Court’s ruling last summer.

    In September, a state court declared the abortion ban unconstitutional and blocked it from being enforced, allowing abortion to remain legal in the state.

    Michigan voters enshrined abortion rights in the state constitution during the midterms, a move that was intended to help block the ban from taking effect.

    But reproductive rights advocates see the bills’ passage through the legislature as “major step forward.”

    “This is proof positive that elections matter,” Mini Timmaraju, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said in a statement. “Michiganders made clear in the midterms that they overwhelmingly support reproductive freedom, and repealing this oppressive pre-Roe ban sends an unmistakable signal that Michigan will always fight for abortion access.”

    Democratic state senators celebrated the bills’ passage in the legislature Wednesday.

    “My abortion was necessary to save my life,” state Sen. Rosemary Bayer said on Twitter. “I’m glad I’m here today because of that, and to be able to vote on this bill and ensure this life-saving healthcare is protected and kept safe and legal here in Michigan.”

    Republicans in the Michigan state Senate, however, oppose the new effort and have described it as “dangerous.”

    “While Senate Republicans have introduced legislation to strengthen safeguards for women, Senate Democrats are rushing dangerous bills to repeal long-standing protections for women and the unborn,” GOP state Sen. Joseph Bellino said in a statement.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Newsom to shut Walgreens out of California state business following abortion pill decision | CNN Politics

    Newsom to shut Walgreens out of California state business following abortion pill decision | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    California will cease all its business with Walgreens, the retail drugstore chain, Gov. Gavin Newsom said on Monday, days after the company announced it would not dispense abortion medication in 21 Republican-dominated states.

    “California won’t be doing business with @walgreens – or any company that cowers to the extremists and puts women’s lives at risk,” the Democratic governor tweeted. “We’re done.”

    Newsom’s pushback came at an already fraught time for the future of medication abortion, which is used in more than half of all procedures nationwide, as a Texas judge weighs issuing a ban on Mifepristone, the first pill in a two-drug abortion regimen. Walgreens had responded to legal pressure from Republican attorneys general in 21 states – including a handful where abortion remains legal – in deciding to partially halt its efforts to sell the drug.

    “We intend to be a certified pharmacy and will distribute Mifepristone only in those jurisdictions where it is legal and operationally feasible,” the company said last week in a statement.

    Walgreens declined to comment on Newsom’s tweet.

    The clash between Newsom and Walgreens, a massive chain with thousands of stores around the country, marks the latest round of fallout following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. The ruling, handed down in June of last year, shook up national politics ahead of the 2022 midterms – with many Democrats crediting the backlash for helping their candidates in tough, swing state and seat races – and complicated relationships between political and business leaders.

    The state is currently “reviewing all relationships between Walgreens and the state,” said Newsom spokesman Brandon Richards. He also accused the company of giving in to “right wing bullies.”

    Newsom’s office announced Wednesday that California would be “pulling back” a renewal of a $54 million contract with Walgreens that would have taken effect May 1, 2023.

    California’s Department of General Services holds a contract with the retailer “to procure specialty pharmacy prescription drugs,” mostly used by the state’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and its correctional health care system, Newsom’s office said in a news release.

    The state will explore other options “for furnishing the same services,” his office said.

    CNN has reached out to Walgreens for comment on Wednesday’s announcement.

    Late last week, Democratic California state Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a statement slamming Walgreens for bowing to political pressure from GOP officials.

    “Medication abortion is safe, effective, and serves as a lifeline for people in need of critical care, especially those from vulnerable and underserved communities,” Bonta said on Friday. “I am disappointed that Walgreens has decided to give in to political pressure from anti-abortion states, and cut off access to these necessary and lifesaving medications.”

    The company on Monday sought to clarify its position, though their latest statement only added to the confusion.

    “Walgreens plans to dispense Mifepristone in any jurisdiction where it is legally permissible to do so,” the company said. Medication abortion is legal and accessible in states like Kansas and Iowa, among others, despite opposition from top Republicans, who have threatened legal action.

    In a letter addressed to Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, an anti-abortion Republican, from last month, Walgreens said it “does not intend to dispense Mifepristone within your state and does not intend to ship Mifepristone into your state from any of our pharmacies.”

    Abortion remains protected under Kansas state law. Last summer, the state voted overwhelmingly to block efforts by lawmakers to ban the procedure following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade less than two months earlier.

    The US Food and Drug Administration said in early January that pharmacies certified to dispense Mifepristone can do so directly to someone who has a prescription from a prescriber.

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Texas sued by women who say state’s abortion bans put their health at risk | CNN Politics

    Texas sued by women who say state’s abortion bans put their health at risk | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Several women who say Texas’ abortion bans posed significant risks to their health have sued the state this week, opening a new front in the legal battles that have emerged since the Supreme Court overturned national abortion rights protections last year.

    Five women allege in the lawsuit that uncertainty around when medical emergency exemptions in Texas’ abortion laws apply exacerbated medical emergencies that put their lives, health and fertility in danger.

    “To the extent Texas’s abortion bans bar the provision of abortion to pregnant people to treat medical conditions that pose a risk to the pregnant person’s life or a significant risk to their health,” the lawsuit says, “the Bans violate pregnant people’s” rights under the state constitution’s provisions protecting fundamental rights and the right to equality.

    The lawsuit is not seeking to block Texas’ abortion bans outright. Rather, the women – who are joined by two medical providers in the lawsuit – ask the court to clarify that abortions can be performed when a physician makes a “good faith judgment” that “the pregnant person has a physical emergent medical condition that poses a risk of death or a risk to their health (including their fertility).”

    The women’s complaint details harrowing stories of being denied abortion care when they faced emergency complications in their pregnancies, which were all wanted. They filed the lawsuit in state court in Austin, Texas.

    Texas, its Attorney General Ken Paxton, the Texas Medical Board and its Executive Director Stephen Brint Carlton are listed as defendants in the lawsuit. Neither Paxton’s office nor a spokesperson for the state medical board responded to a request for comment from CNN. Gov. Greg Abbott’s office also did not immediately respond to CNN’s inquiry.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • DeSantis agenda — and potential campaign platform — in the spotlight as Florida lawmakers return to work | CNN Politics

    DeSantis agenda — and potential campaign platform — in the spotlight as Florida lawmakers return to work | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    In the coming weeks, Gov. Ron DeSantis is poised to show Floridians – and the country – just how much further he is willing to go than any other Republican leader to turn his state into a conservative vision where abortion is nearly outlawed, guns can be carried in public without training, private schools are subsidized with taxpayer dollars and “wokeness” is excised.

    DeSantis’ agenda is expected to dominate the debate in Tallahassee when state lawmakers return to action on Tuesday for what is perhaps the most anticipated legislative session in recent memory. With a decision on his presidential ambitions waiting on the other side of the 60-day session, DeSantis has hyped the humdrum of parliamentary proceedings and legislative sausage-making into a spectacle worth following.

    “People look at Florida like, ‘Man, the governor has gotten a lot done,’” DeSantis told “Fox & Friends” last month. “You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.”

    With DeSantis’ backing or urging, Republican lawmakers have filed a slate of bills that will keep Florida at the forefront of the culture wars that are raging in statehouses across the country. There are legislative proposals targeting drag shows, treatments for transgender children, diversity and equity programs at public universities, gender studies majors, professor tenure, teachers unions, libel protections for the media, so-called “woke” banking and in-state college tuition for undocumented residents. Other proposals would extend DeSantis’ powers as governor, including to control the hiring of professors on every public campus through his political appointees and put him in charge of picking the board that oversees scholastic athletics in the state. Another would amend a longstanding “resign to run” law so DeSantis could launch a bid for president without stepping down as Florida governor.

    Though no governor in Florida’s modern history has wielded executive power or the bully pulpit quite like DeSantis, it’s the closely aligned, Republican-held legislature that has handed the governor many of the policy wins that have fueled his political rise. Already this year, the legislature has met in special session to shore up several of DeSantis’ priorities, including the freedom to transport migrants from anywhere in the country to Democratic jurisdictions and fewer hurdles for his new election crime office to charge people for voting errors and violations.

    Lawmakers in the special session also approved DeSantis’ plans for a takeover of Disney’s special government powers – punishment for the entertainment giant’s objection last year to the Parental Rights in Education law, dubbed the “Don’t Say Gay” bill by critics, which prohibited the instruction of sexual orientation and gender identity until after third grade. Under the new law, DeSantis chooses the board members that oversee the taxing district around Disney’s Orlando-area theme parks. Last week, he appointed to the board a political donor, the wife of the state GOP chairman and a former pastor who once suggested tap water could turn people gay.

    Now, lawmakers have proposed taking up the legislation at the heart of that feud once again, by extending the prohibited topics in the Parental Rights in Education law to eighth grade. The bill also declares “it is false to ascribe to a person a pronoun that does not correspond to such person’s sex” and it prohibits school districts from requiring teachers or other employees to use a student’s preferred name or pronouns.

    For his part, DeSantis will deliver the state of the state address on Tuesday and then spend much of the following weeks on the road to promote his new book, “The Courage to be Free,” a memoir transfixed on the political battles from his first term. It will be up to Republican lawmakers to give DeSantis fresh material from which he can build a narrative for a presidential campaign, should he choose to run. DeSantis has said he intends to decide after the session if he will jump into the 2024 contest.

    Privately, DeSantis’ political team believes that as a sitting governor, DeSantis’ ability to stack policy wins is critical to mounting a campaign against former President Donald Trump. Like Trump and former Gov. Nikki Haley, the only other major declared candidate, many potential contenders for the nomination are out of office and unable to dictate an agenda for other Republicans to match. And, unlike DeSantis, their records may not reflect what animates GOP primary voters at the moment.

    In a speech behind closed doors last week to the conservative Club for Growth, DeSantis also suggested he is a singular force among elected Republicans in pushing the party to engage in ideological battles.

    “I’m going on offense,” DeSantis said, according to audio of his speech obtained by CNN. “Some of these Republicans, they just sit back like potted plants, and they let the media define the terms of the debate. They let the left define the terms of debate. They take all this incoming, because they’re not making anything happen. And I said, ‘That’s not what we’re doing.’”

    Democrats, a perennial minority in Tallahassee with even fewer members after the last election, have little recourse to stop DeSantis and Republican lawmakers. Democrats have asserted that the Republican agenda is failing to address the problems many Floridians are facing, including skyrocketing rents, a housing shortage and fast-rising property insurance rates.

    “Just a reminder, eggs are still $5 for a dozen,” Senate Minority Leader Lauren Book said Monday. “It’s $3.50 for a gallon of gas. If you live in the state of Florida in a high rise, you still have to buy flood insurance. But the Republicans want to fight about drag and which bathroom people use.”

    Still, there are signs of dissent among Republicans in how hard to push on several fronts. Some Republicans have raised concern at the price tag for a DeSantis-backed expansion of a school voucher program that currently allows low-income parents to offset the cost of sending their children to private and religious school. Under the latest proposal, the program would be open to virtually all parents regardless of income, including those who choose to home school their kids.

    At a committee meeting last week, state Sen. Erin Grall, a Republican, warned that the “potential for abuse rises significantly with the dollar amount and keeping a child at home.”

    Republicans also have not settled on a new legislative framework for the future of abortion access in the state. Before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last summer, DeSantis signed a bill to ban abortion at 15 weeks without exception. He recently signaled he would support legislation that banned abortion after a fetal heartbeat can be detected; however, he has not publicly advocated for it with the same fervor as his other priorities. Meanwhile, the state’s Senate President Kathleen Passidomo previously said she wanted a 12-week ban that included exemptions for rape and incest.

    John Stemberger, president of the Florida Family Policy Council, an influential conservative group, said he expects a compromise heartbeat bill will pass that includes some exceptions. Other anti-abortion groups want to see DeSantis sign a complete ban on abortion.

    “While exceptions are important and represent real human beings, the bottom line is they are small in number, so it’s a huge victory even with exceptions and I think the governor and his staff are thinking the same way,” Stemberger said. “He’s certainly committed to signing a heartbeat bill.”

    It remains to be seen, too, how Republicans respond to DeSantis’ immigration agenda. DeSantis has proposed repealing a measure that granted in-state tuition for undocumented students who were brought to the US by their parents. The law, championed by his own lieutenant governor, Jeanette Nuñez, when she was a state representative, was a top priority of his predecessor, then-Gov. Rick Scott, and passed the GOP-controlled legislature with help from many of the party’s Latino members. Additionally, DeSantis wants lawmakers to mandate that employers check the immigration status of all workers against a federal database called E-Verify, a proposal opposed for years by the state’s influential hospitality and agriculture industries that bankroll many Republican campaigns.

    Republicans have also faced pressure from the right on another DeSantis priority: eliminating the state permit to carry a concealed weapon in Florida. Under the proposal, eligible Floridians could carry a concealed gun in Florida without seeking approval from the state, which currently requires proof of training and a background check to obtain.

    While Democrats and gun-control advocates have criticized DeSantis for removing one of the few checks on firearms in the state, gun-rights activists have said the measure doesn’t go far enough. They want Florida to allow people to carry a gun in public in the open and for the state to eliminate gun-free zones. In Florida, it’s currently illegal to carry a firearm at a school or on a college campus.

    “The title of ‘constitutional carry’ for this bill is a lie,” Luis Valdes, the Florida director of Gun Owners of America, said during a recent committee hearing on the bill. “Why are Republicans defending (former Democratic attorney general) Janet Reno’s gun control policies?”

    DeSantis has suggested, at times, that it is up to the legislature to put these bills on his desk. But for some conservatives, DeSantis has set the expectation that he can bully Republican lawmakers into supporting any measure he gets behind.

    DeSantis himself has said his political philosophy is guided by taking political risks that others won’t.

    “Boldness is something that voters reward,” DeSantis said Sunday in California. “The lesson is swing for the fences. You will be rewarded.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • 12 blue states sue FDA, saying it’s too strict in limiting abortion drugs as legal battle over mifepristone heats up | CNN Politics

    12 blue states sue FDA, saying it’s too strict in limiting abortion drugs as legal battle over mifepristone heats up | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Twelve states led by liberal attorneys general announced Friday that they had sued the Food and Drug Administration, saying its limits on mifepristone, one of the two drugs used for medication abortion, are too strict.

    The suit is a possible hedge by states waiting to see how a federal judge in Texas rules in a lawsuit brought by anti-abortion groups seeking to block the FDA’s approval of mifepristone altogether. Conflicting rulings could mean the Supreme Court is asked to sort out the issue.

    RELATED: How a medication abortion, also known as an ‘abortion pill,’ works

    “The federal government has known for years that mifepristone is safe and effective,” Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson said in a statement. “In the wake of the Supreme Court’s radical decision overturning Roe v. Wade, the FDA is now exposing doctors, pharmacists and patients to unnecessary risk. The FDA’s excessive restrictions on this important drug have no basis in medical science.”

    Mifepristone was first approved in 2000 and medication abortion accounts for more than half of the abortions in the US. It is the first drug, followed by misoprostol, in the medication abortion regimen. Patients and providers must sign agreements stating the drug will be used to end a pregnancy, and pharmacies must have special certification.

    The lawsuit was filed in federal court in the Eastern District of Washington state. The states in the lawsuit are: Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Rhode Island and Vermont.

    A lawsuit seeking to block the use of medication abortion nationwide could receive an initial decision at any moment, after the plaintiffs in the case submitted to the court on Friday their final brief on the challenge.

    The lawsuit, filed in November by anti-abortion advocates against FDA, challenges the two-decade-old approval of mifepristone, the first drug in the medication abortion process.

    A decision by US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, in favor of the plaintiffs could have far-reaching consequences since medication abortion now makes up a majority of abortions obtained in the US.

    In the filing submitted Friday, the anti-abortion advocates rehashed many of the arguments they made in earlier briefs. Its submission means that Kacsmaryk could soon rule on a motion by the plaintiffs to temporarily block use of the medication. The judge had previously said that once the February 24 filing deadline ended, “briefing will then be closed on the matter, absent any ‘exceptional or extraordinary circumstances.’”

    Kacsmaryk, however, could also call for a hearing, or ask for additional responses.

    The defendants in the case – the FDA and Danco, which makes mifepristone – argued in separate briefs to the court that a decision against the drug’s approval would be unprecedented and would shutter the drugmaker’s business.

    Reproductive rights advocates have stressed that a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs would be devastating, with NARAL Pro-Choice America saying in a statement that if the drug is yanked from the market, “64.5 million women of reproductive age in the US would lose access to medication abortion care, an exponential increase in harm overnight.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Kentucky Supreme Court ruling allows state’s near-total abortion bans to remain in place for now | CNN Politics

    Kentucky Supreme Court ruling allows state’s near-total abortion bans to remain in place for now | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The Supreme Court of Kentucky ruled Thursday that a lower court wrongfully stopped the enforcement of two state abortion laws, according to court documents.

    The two measures are Kentucky’s so-called trigger law banning the procedure and a separate “heartbeat” law restricting abortions at around six weeks of pregnancy.

    Siding with Republican Attorney General Daniel Cameron, Justice Debra Hembree Lambert asserted in her opinion that the circuit court “abused its discretion by granting abortion provider’s motion for a temporary injunction.”

    Planned Parenthood, along with an abortion provider represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Kentucky, sued to block Kentucky’s sweeping abortion laws after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year.

    They filed two complaints challenging the two statutes, which effectively prohibit abortions in Kentucky except in limited circumstances where it is necessary to preserve the life of the mother, according to the opinion.

    The near-total bans outlaw abortion in most instances with no exceptions for rape or incest, making Kentucky one of 13 states that have banned or severely restricted abortion.

    The plaintiffs argued that the laws violate the state’s constitutional rights to privacy, bodily autonomy, and self-determination, Planned Parenthood and the ACLU said in a statement.

    After a circuit court temporarily enjoined the abortion bans last summer, an appellate court judge granted the attorney general’s emergency request to dissolve the injunction, but an appellate panel later recommended that the state’s highest court weigh in on the injunction.

    The Supreme Court of Kentucky ruled that the abortion providers did not have the standing to challenge the six-week ban because they had not argued it violated their own constitutional rights, only those of their patients.

    Although the court found that the abortion providers have standing to challenge the trigger ban, it ruled that the abortion providers did not show they were sufficiently harmed by the ban to warrant a temporary injunction on its enforcement, according to the opinion.

    Instead, the court remanded the case to the lower court to determine the constitutionality of the trigger ban, the opinion stated.

    The opinion does not determine whether the Kentucky Constitution protects the right to receive an abortion, as there was no “appropriate party” to raise the issue in the suit, according to Lambert.

    “Nothing in this opinion shall be construed to prevent an appropriate party from filing suit at a later date,” she said.

    In a statement, Planned Parenthood and the ACLU expressed disappointment with the ruling but said “this fight is not over.”

    “Once again, the Kentucky Supreme Court failed to protect the health and safety of nearly a million people in the state by refusing to reinstate the lower court order blocking the law,” the statement said.

    The statement added, “Even after Kentuckians overwhelmingly voted against an anti-abortion ballot measure, abortion remains banned in the state. We are extremely disappointed in today’s decision, but we will never give up the fight to restore bodily autonomy and reproductive freedom in Kentucky.”

    Cameron called the ruling a “significant victory” Thursday.

    “Since the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade last June, we have vigorously defended Kentucky’s Human Life Protection Act and Heartbeat Law,” he said in a statement. “We are very pleased that Kentucky’s high court has allowed these laws to remain in effect while the case proceeds in circuit court.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • National Archives agrees to give personal tours to activists who say staff asked them to hide anti-abortion attire | CNN Politics

    National Archives agrees to give personal tours to activists who say staff asked them to hide anti-abortion attire | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    The National Archives will give “personal tours” to two activists who sued the federal records agency, resolving a days-old lawsuit the pair brought after staff at the museum told them cover up anti-abortion attire during a recent visit.

    A federal lawsuit filed last Wednesday said that the activists were visiting the Washington, DC, museum the same day as the national March for Life in January and “were subject to a pattern of ongoing misconduct by federal government officials, specifically National Archives security officers … who targeted plaintiffs and intentionally chilled their religious speech and expression by requiring plaintiffs to remove or cover their attire because of their pro-life messages.”

    The National Archives quickly issued a statement last week clarifying that its policy allows visitor clothing to “display protest language, including religious and political speech,” and said it would investigate the incident.

    In court papers filed Tuesday by both sides, the museum promised to work with each plaintiff to arrange a “personal tour” of the museum. Under the deal, staff with the National Archives and Records Administration will also extend “a personal apology on that tour regarding the events” that unfolded last month.

    “NARA shall further reiterate to all NARA security officers, as well as all other NARA personnel who interact with the public … that NARA policy expressly allows all visitors to wear t-shirts, hats, buttons, and other similar items, that display protest language, including religious and political speech,” the agreement reads.

    A judge must still approve the agreement.

    Last month’s March for Life event saw scores of anti-abortion activists travel from all over the US to attend the march, which was the first such event held since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year – the primary goal of the annual protest.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What to know about the lawsuit aiming to ban medication abortion drug mifepristone | CNN Politics

    What to know about the lawsuit aiming to ban medication abortion drug mifepristone | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A federal judge may rule later this month on a lawsuit seeking to block the use of medication abortion nationwide, in the biggest abortion-related case since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year.

    The lawsuit, filed in November by anti-abortion advocates against the US Food and Drug Administration, targets the agency’s 20-year-old approval of mifepristone, the first drug in the medication abortion process

    Medication abortion, which now makes up a majority of abortions obtained in the US, has become a particularly acute flashpoint in the fallout from the Supreme Court’s decision last year overturning Roe v. Wade.

    US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, has extended the briefing deadline in the case until February 24.

    Reproductive rights advocates say that if Kacsmaryk sides with the plaintiffs, “it would eliminate the most commonly used method of abortion care,” according to NARAL Pro-Choice America.

    Here’s what to know about the lawsuit:

    The lawsuit, filed last year by a coalition of anti-abortion national medical associations under the umbrella of the “Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine” and several doctors, is seeking a number of actions by the court, chief among them a preliminary and permanent injunction ordering the FDA “to withdraw mifepristone and misoprostol as FDA-approved chemical abortion drugs and to withdraw defendants’ actions to deregulate these chemical abortion drugs.”

    “After two decades of engaging the FDA to no avail, plaintiffs now ask this court to do what the FDA was and is legally required to do: protect women and girls by holding unlawful, setting aside, and vacating the FDA’s actions to approve chemical abortion drugs and eviscerate crucial safeguards for those who undergo this dangerous drug regimen,” the complaint reads.

    The FDA responded to the lawsuit last month by asking the judge to deny the motion for a preliminary injunction, arguing that issuing one in the matter “would upend the status quo and the reliance interests of patients and doctors who depend on mifepristone, as well as businesses involved with mifepristone distribution.”

    The agency also says a ruling against it would set a dangerous precedent.

    “More generally, if longstanding FDA drug approvals were so easily enjoined, even decades after being issued, pharmaceutical companies would be unable to confidently rely on FDA approval decisions to develop the pharmaceutical-drug infrastructure that Americans depend on to treat a variety of health conditions,” the FDA wrote.

    “A preliminary injunction would interfere with Congress’s decision to entrust FDA with responsibility to ensure the safety and efficacy of drugs. In discharging this role, FDA applies its technical expertise to make complex scientific determinations about drugs’ safety and efficacy, and these determinations are entitled to substantial deference.”

    Danco, which makes mifepristone, also made a similar request to the FDA’s in a court filing, stressing that the lawsuit could decimate the company’s business.

    “Danco is a small pharmaceutical company. It sells one drug: Mifeprex,” lawyers for the company wrote in court papers. “Entering the mandatory preliminary injunction plaintiffs seek would force FDA to withdraw approval for Danco’s only product, effectively shuttering Danco’s business.”

    “Congress entrusts decision-making like this with the FDA. And they’re coming in trying to overrule that, saying this medication is unsafe because women bleed. Well, that’s part of having an abortion. It’s also part of having a pregnancy,” said Ryan Brown, an attorney representing Danco in the case. “The bottom line being that they just want to do away with abortion across the board and for any reason.”

    Kacsmaryk was appointed to the court in 2017 by then-President Trump and was confirmed by a 52-46 vote in 2019.

    Since then, he’s helped make Texas a legal graveyard for policies of President Joe Biden’s administration, presiding over 95% of the civil cases brought in Amarillo, Texas.

    In December, Kacsmaryk put on hold the Biden administration’s most recent attempt to end the so-called “Remain in Mexico” program. And he has overseen Texas cases challenging vaccine mandates, the gender identity guidance issued by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the administration’s limits on the use of Covid-19 relief funds for tax cuts.

    Before joining the court, Kacsmaryk served as deputy general counsel at the First Liberty Institute, a nonprofit religious liberty legal group, where he worked mainly on “religious liberty litigation in federal courts and amicus briefs in the US Supreme Court,” according to his White House biography.

    The case is being closely watched by a number of interested parties, including Republican and Democratic state attorneys general. On Friday, two different multi-state coalitions filed amicus briefs with the court urging them to act one way or another in the matter.

    A coalition of 22 Democratic attorneys general urged Kacsmaryk to deny the motion for a preliminary injunction, writing in court papers that “annulling – or even merely limiting – any of the FDA’s actions relating to medication abortion would result in an even more drastic reduction in abortion access across the entire nation, worsening already dire outcomes, deepening entrenched disparities in access to health care, and placing a potentially unbearable strain on the health care system as a whole.”

    And a coalition of 22 Republican attorneys general asked the court to issue the preliminary injunction, arguing the FDA exceeded its authority when it approved the medication.

    “State laws on chemical abortion thus account for the public interests at issue – and they do so with the benefit of democratic legitimacy (and legal authority). The FDA’s actions can make no such claim. By obstructing the judgments of elected representatives, the agency has undermined the public interest,” they wrote.

    Abortion rights advocates have sounded the alarm on the case, stressing that a ruling by Kacsmaryk in favor of the plaintiffs would affect every corner of the country since the lawsuit is targeting a federal agency.

    “If FDA approval of mifepristone is revoked, 64.5 million women of reproductive age in the US would lose access to medication abortion care, an exponential increase in harm overnight,” NARAL said in a statement on Friday, pointing to internal research.

    “This research reveals the high stakes of this lawsuit, and we can only expect the worst from this Trump-appointed federal judge. Americans want access to abortion, but anti-choice bad actors are dead set on restricting reproductive freedom by any means possible,” said Angela Vasquez-Giroux, the group’s vice president of communications and research.

    And activists are mobilizing in Texas around the issue, with the Women’s March planning to hold a rally at the federal courthouse in Amarillo, Texas, on Saturday.

    “We’ve said it before: the fight for reproductive rights now lies in the states, and legal challenges like these are just the latest example of how our fight is bigger than Roe,” said Rachel Carmona, the executive director of Women’s March.

    On Thursday, Kacsmaryk told the plaintiffs that they had until February 24 to respond to a recent filing by the Danco, writing in an order that following the deadline, “briefing will then be closed on the matter, absent any ‘exceptional or extraordinary circumstances.’”

    On Friday, the plaintiffs in the case submitted one response to the FDA’s filing. But the deadline extension means that after the plaintiffs submit a separate response to Danco, the case is ripe for judgment since all required briefings will have been filed.

    Kacsmaryk can rule at any time after that, though he could also call for a hearing, or ask for additional responses as well.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Minnesota governor signs bill codifying ‘fundamental right’ to abortion into law | CNN Politics

    Minnesota governor signs bill codifying ‘fundamental right’ to abortion into law | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Minnesota’s Democratic Gov. Tim Walz signed a bill into law Tuesday that enshrines the “fundamental right” to access abortion in the state.

    Abortion is already legal in Minnesota, but in the aftermath of the US Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, the Protect Reproductive Options Act goes a step further by outlining that every person has the fundamental right to make “autonomous decisions” about their own reproductive health as well as the right to refuse reproductive health care.

    “This is very simple, very right to the point,” Walz said Tuesday on “CNN Tonight.” “We trust women in Minnesota, and that’s not what came out of the [Supreme Court’s] decision, so I think it’s critically important that we build a fire wall.”

    With the passage of the bill, Minnesota is now the first state to codify abortion via legislative action since Roe v. Wade was reversed, the office of the bill’s lead author in Minnesota’s state Senate, told CNN.

    “Last November, Minnesotans spoke loud and clear: They want their reproductive rights protected – not stripped away,” Walz said in a news release. “Today, we are delivering on our promise to put up a firewall against efforts to reverse reproductive freedom. No matter who sits on the Minnesota Supreme Court, this legislation will ensure Minnesotans have access to reproductive health care for generations to come. Here in Minnesota, your access to reproductive health care and your freedom to make your own health care decisions are preserved and protected.”

    The bill states that local government cannot restrict a person’s ability to exercise the “fundamental right” to reproductive freedom. It also clarifies that this right extends to accessing contraception, sterilization, family planning, fertility services and counseling regarding reproductive health care.

    “The Pro Act also goes beyond just granting those rights to abortion, it really says all reproductive healthcare decisions aren’t our business, including access to contraception, including access to really anything that is related to personal and private decisions about your reproductive life,” Megan Peterson, the executive director of pro-abortion rights campaign UnRestrict Minnesota, told CNN following Walz’s signing of the bill.

    In a letter to Walz ahead of the signing, Republican legislature leaders argued that the bill went too far and urged the governor to veto what they called “an extreme law.”

    “As the PRO Act was being rushed through the legislature, Republicans offered reasonable amendments with guardrails to protect women and children,” state Senate Minority Leader Mark Johnson and House Minority Leader Lisa Demuth wrote, “Sadly, each of these amendments were struck down by a Democrat majority.”

    In 1995, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in Doe v. Gomez that abortion was a fundamental right protected under the state’s constitution. The Protect Reproductive Options Act ensures that even in the event of a new state Supreme Court reversing the ruling, the right to abortion will be protected under state law.

    “By passing this law, Minnesotans will have a second layer of protection for their existing reproductive rights. A future Minnesota Supreme Court could overturn Doe v. Gomez, but with the PRO Act now in State law, Minnesotans will still have a right to Reproductive healthcare,” Luke Bishop, a spokesperson for Democratic State Sen. Jennifer McEwen, the bill’s author in the Senate, told CNN over email.

    Following the governor’s signature of the bill, the White House applauded Minnesota’s efforts, pointing to the popular support for women’s rights to make their own health care decisions.

    “Americans overwhelmingly support a woman’s right to make her own health care decisions, as so clearly demonstrated last fall when voters turned out to defend access to abortion – including for ballot initiatives in California, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, and Vermont,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement.

    “While Congressional Republicans continue their support for extreme policies including a national abortion ban, the President and Vice President are calling on Congress to restore the protections of Roe in federal law,” she wrote. “Until then, the Biden-Harris Administration will continue its work to protect access to abortion and support state leaders in defending women’s reproductive rights.”

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Kamala Harris mourns victims of Monterey Park shooting before speech to mark 50 years since Roe | CNN Politics

    Kamala Harris mourns victims of Monterey Park shooting before speech to mark 50 years since Roe | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Vice President Kamala Harris declared Sunday that “this violence must stop” in her first on-camera remarks about the mass shooting in Monterey Park, California, that has left at least 10 people dead.

    “I do want to address the tragedy of what happened in my home state,” Harris, a former California senator and state attorney general, told a crowd in Tallahassee, Florida, at the beginning of her speech to mark 50 years since the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision.

    “A time of a cultural celebration … and yet another community has been torn apart by senseless gun violence,” the vice president said, noting that the shooting took place on the weekend of the Lunar New Year. The attack happened at a dance studio Saturday night near a Lunar New Year festival celebration in the city approximately seven miles from downtown Los Angeles.

    “So Doug and I join the president and Dr. Biden, and I know everyone here, in mourning for those who were killed, as we pray for those who are injured, and as we grieve for those many people whose lives are forever changed. All of us in this room and in our country understand this violence must stop,” Harris said. “And President Biden and I and our administration will continue to provide full support to the local authorities as we learn more.”

    President Joe Biden said in a Sunday morning tweet that he is monitoring the aftermath of the mass shooting “closely as it develops.”

    “Jill and I are praying for those killed and injured in last night’s deadly mass shooting in Monterey Park,” he said. “I’m monitoring this situation closely as it develops, and urge the community to follow guidance from local officials and law enforcement in the hours ahead.”

    The White House announced earlier Sunday that the president had been briefed by Homeland Security adviser Liz Sherwood-Randall and had directed her to “make sure that the FBI is providing full support to local authorities,” while providing him regular updates.

    The Bidens remain at their vacation home in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, and are expected to return to Washington, DC, on Monday.

    Harris’ high-profile speech in Tallahassee came on the 50th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, which the Supreme Court overturned in June, ending federal protections for abortion.

    The vice president sought to draw a direct throughline between abortion access and the freedoms enjoyed by Americans, arguing that limits or outright bans on reproductive health care threaten the rights of ordinary citizens.

    “There’s a collection of words that mean everything to us as Americans. The heartfelt words of our great national anthem, that America is the land of the free and the home of the brave. But let us ask, can we truly be free if a woman cannot make decisions about her own body?” Harris said as the crowd at The Moon nightclub responded with a loud “no.”

    The vice president’s office said there were 1,500 people in attendance.

    Harris’ office said earlier that the choice of Florida for the vice president’s speech Sunday spoke to the reality that the Sunshine State, which enacted a 15-week abortion ban last year, is now at the forefront of the abortion debate.

    Harris did not mention the state’s Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, by name in her remarks, but she appeared to speak directly to the potential 2024 presidential contender, as well as other Republican opponents of abortion rights.

    “Republicans in Congress are now calling for a nationwide abortion ban,” she said.”The right of every woman in every state in this country to make decisions about her own body is on the line. And I’ve said it before, and I will say it again: How dare they?”

    Harris in her speech announced a new presidential memorandum Biden will sign to protect access to medication abortion.

    “I’m pleased to announce that President Biden, I’m announcing it today, has issued a presidential memorandum on this issue. Members of our Cabinet and our administration are now directed as of the president’s order to identify barriers to access to prescription medication and to recommend actions to make sure that doctors can legally prescribe, that pharmacies can dispense and that women can secure safe and effective medication,” Harris said.

    As vice president, Harris has claimed the issue of reproductive rights as her own, becoming the administrations most visible advocate for abortion rights since news leaked last year that the Supreme Court was all but expected to overturn Roe v. Wade. Harris traveled the country to convene state legislators, activists, lawyers and educators to discuss the issue and set a national message for Democrats.

    The Biden administration has taken steps in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision last June to ensure access to abortion care. The president signed an executive order in August that he said would help women travel out of state to receive abortions; ensure health care providers comply with federal law so women aren’t delayed in getting care; and advance research and data collection “to evaluate the impact that this reproductive health crisis is having on maternal health and other health conditions and outcomes.”

    Harris, touting the White House’s strategy, called Sunday on Congress to pass federal protections for abortion.

    But any legislation to enshrine abortion rights into federal law is unlikely to get far in the Republican controlled-House, which passed a bill earlier this month that would require health care providers to try to preserve the life of an infant in the rare case that a baby is born alive during or after an attempted abortion. The bill is not expected to be taken up in the Democratic-controlled Senate, but passage in the House serves as a messaging opportunity for the new Republican majority.

    Still, Harris encouraged abortion rights advocates to stay positive.

    “To all the friends and leaders, I say let us not be tired or discouraged because we’re on the right side of history,” she said Sunday. “Here now, on this 50th anniversary, let us resolve to make history and secure this right.”

    This story and headline have been updated.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Lead Supreme Court investigator on Dobbs leak makes clear she spoke to all nine justices | CNN Politics

    Lead Supreme Court investigator on Dobbs leak makes clear she spoke to all nine justices | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The Supreme Court marshal who investigated last year’s leak of a draft opinion overturning Roe v. Wade has revealed that she spoke to all nine justices and found nothing to implicate them or their spouses.

    Friday’s remarks by Marshal Gail Curley come after the court’s investigative report on the leak, which was released Thursday, did not specify whether justices had been interviewed, leading to questions as to whether investigators had considered their potential role.

    “During the course of the investigation, I spoke with each of the Justices, several on multiple occasions,” Curley said in a statement. “The Justices actively cooperated in this iterative process, asking questions and answering mine.”

    Curley added: “I followed up on all credible leads, none of which implicated the Justices or their spouses. On this basis, I did not believe that it was necessary to ask the Justices to sign sworn affidavits.”

    Curley said her team conducted 126 formal interviews of 97 Supreme Court employees. The employees were asked to sign affidavits, under penalty of perjury, to affirm that they did not disclose the draft opinion and had provided all “pertinent information” related to the disclosure of the draft.

    The court announced Thursday that it has yet to determine who leaked the draft opinion to the media last year, but at least 90 people had access to the document at one point.

    According to the investigative report, a few employees admitted to telling their spouses about the draft opinion or the vote count of the justices. While the report notes that such actions violated the court’s confidentiality rules, it does not say whether that led to further investigation or disciplinary action.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Supreme Court embarrassed by the opinion leak is embarrassed again | CNN Politics

    Supreme Court embarrassed by the opinion leak is embarrassed again | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The Supreme Court’s stunning report Thursday on its failure to discover who leaked a draft decision reversing abortion rights last year laid bare shortfalls at the nation’s highest court, in its technology, protocols for confidentiality and overall institutional safeguards.

    Further, the lack of success in discovering who was responsible raises the possibility of a security breach in the future. It already appears likely to add to the public’s distrust of the justices and accelerate the partisan rancor surrounding the court.

    The justices’ two-page statement and 20-page report from Supreme Court Marshal Gail Curley appear intended to demonstrate the thoroughness of the investigation, with numbers of people interviewed (126 formal interviews of 97 employees) and various forensic measures taken.

    Yet each page rings with limitations and dead ends. It also suggests certain boundaries on who was investigated, referring only to employee scrutiny. There was no mention of possible interviews with the nine individual justices or their spouses.

    On Friday, Curley put out a statement saying she had spoken to the justices but suggesting that it was in a less formal process than her interviews with employees. She said she did not ask the justices to sign sworn affidavits, as she had asked their law clerks, and that none of the leads she pursued implicated the justices or their spouses.

    Overall, it is paradoxical that an institution that cloaks itself in secrecy and casts itself above other Washington institutions would be exposed as such a sieve.

    The report expresses outright how easily confidential information could have slipped out, whether deliberately or accidentally. About 100 people had access to the draft at the outset, according to the details of the report. Many employees, the report said, “printed out more than one copy.”

    In a momentous case involving a half century of precedent protecting women’s privacy rights, routine office precautions were absent. And when the breach was discovered – a breach that the court itself deemed “a grave assault” – it was all but impossible to re-trace internal operations.

    Although the report effectively clears the law clerks who serve the justices for one-year terms, it noted that some of them admitted to telling their spouses about the opinion and vote count, in violation of the clerks’ code of conduct.

    In the days immediately after Politico published the draft, some conservative activists had accused liberal clerks of the disclosure. Liberal advocates, meanwhile, targeted the court’s conservatives who might have been trying cement the 5-4 split to overturn Roe v. Wade. The partisan acrimony only increased once the decision upending reproductive rights nationwide was issued.

    Thursday’s inconclusive report did little to ease such tensions and instead spurred questions about how seriously the court sought out those responsible for the leak.

    Outside critics had predicted that it would be difficult to determine who leaked the draft to Politico, which published the document on May 2, believing that whoever was responsible would not have left a trail.

    But now that the court has laid out its operations, it appears it might have been quite simple to avoid detection.

    Computer and printing technology was not secure. Officials could not determine conclusively whether copies of the draft decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization had been surreptitiously copied or emailed to unauthorized devices.

    “(F)or some networked printers there was very little logging capability at the time, so it is likely that many print jobs were simply not captured,” the report stated. Investigators also found that printers used by the justices’ staff were only locally connected, rather than connected to a larger network that could track printing activity.

    The report acknowledged that no written policy existed on how to safeguard or dispose of draft opinions and other sensitive documents.

    “The pandemic and resulting expansion of the ability to work from home, as well as gaps in the Court’s security policies,” Curley wrote, “created an environment where it was too easy to remove sensitive information from the building and the Court’s IT networks, increasing the risk of both deliberate and accidental disclosures of Court-sensitive information.”

    The report, nearly nine months in the making, belied the suspense generated by Chief Justice John Roberts’ launch of the investigation. In his May 3 statement, he referred to a “betrayal of the confidences of the Court … intended to undermine the integrity of our operations.”

    The report came with a seal of approval from an outside firm, the Chertoff Group, hired to review Curley’s investigation. Michael Chertoff, a former judge and secretary of Homeland Security who now runs a private firm, wrote that Curley and her investigators had undertaken a “thorough investigation within their legal authorities.”

    In his one-page statement attached to the justices’ materials for public distribution, Chertoff made specific recommendations, all of which appeared fairly basic for any operation handling legal documents, if not the country’s top judicial officers: restrict the distribution of paper copies of sensitive documents; restrict the email distribution of such documents; adopt tools to better control how such documents are edited and shared; and limit the access of sensitive information on outside mobile devices.

    Curley had noted that no evidence emerged showing that anyone emailed the draft opinion outside, “although technical limitations in the Court’s computer recordkeeping at the time made it impossible to rule out this possibility entirely.” She said she also could not eliminate the possibility that someone had downloaded the opinion to a removable device.

    CNN had reported last summer that Curley was collecting cell phones and other devices from clerks and permanent employees. “To date,” she wrote in the report, “the investigators have found no relevant information from these devices.” Interviews and signed affidavits also yielded no answers.

    Curley, who said that new security measures were being implemented, was candid about how few conclusions her team could reach, adding that the draft opinion could have been inadvertently left in a public place. Yet, she added, regarding any employee who acted intentionally, “that person was able to act with impunity because of inadequate security with respect to the movement of hard copy documents from the Court to home, the absence of mechanisms to track print jobs on Court printers and copiers, and other gaps in securities or policies.”

    That reality puts a bureaucratic stamp on what has been regarded as the court’s most serious breach ever.

    Roberts had vowed back in May that the disclosure would not affect the justices’ work. He declared then that the draft “does not represent a decision by the Court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case.”

    But it did – despite Roberts’ own efforts to try to change the outcome.

    The final opinion, issued on June 24, differed little from the draft opinion reversing Roe v. Wade, a 1973 decision that first gave woman a constitutional right to end a pregnancy. Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the new opinion, was joined by four fellow conservatives.

    Even after the leak, CNN had learned, Roberts tried to persuade one of the five justices in the majority to break away and prevent the reversal of nearly a half century of abortion rights. The chief justice voted to uphold a disputed Mississippi law that banned abortion at 15 weeks of pregnancy, but he did not want to use the case to obliterate abortion rights at earlier stages of pregnancy.

    None of the five on the right might ever have wavered in their votes, but CNN learned through sources at the time that the leaked decision made Roberts’ negotiating efforts all the more difficult.

    Determining how the leak changed the course of history may be impossible. But Thursday’s report, revealing the loose handling of confidential documents, suggests the leak itself need not have been inevitable.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump struggles with the new politics of abortion as a triumphant March for Life arrives in Washington | CNN Politics

    Trump struggles with the new politics of abortion as a triumphant March for Life arrives in Washington | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The anti-abortion “March for Life” for decades demonstrated to Republicans that they could not reach the Oval Office without the support of the anti-abortion movement.

    On Friday, marchers will gather in Washington with a decades-long mission accomplished, after the Supreme Court’s removal of a constitutional right to an abortion by overturning the Roe v. Wade decision last year.

    That means this year’s march will be a time for celebration but also of debate about where the movement goes next with some campaigners seeking to restrict the procedure everywhere. But such a refocused goal carries big risks. Democrats after all belatedly leveraged their own energy over abortion in the midterm elections in a backlash against the right-wing Supreme Court majority that helped stave off a big Republican midterm election wave.

    The March for Life also comes at an extraordinary moment when Donald Trump, the president who did more than any other to end Roe after a pact with social conservative voters that helped win him the 2016 GOP nomination, has launched an extraordinary attack on evangelical leaders he sees as insufficiently loyal, as CNN’s Gabby Orr, Kristen Holmes and Kaitlan Collins reported this week.

    “Nobody has ever done more for Right to Life than Donald Trump. I put three Supreme Court justices, who all voted, and they got something that they’ve been fighting for 64 years, for many, many years,” Trump said in an interview on Real America’s Voice Monday, referring to the overturning of federal abortion rights.

    “There’s great disloyalty in the world of politics and that’s a sign of disloyalty,” Trump told conservative journalist David Brody.

    The comment was a window into Trump’s psychology, revealing his transactional understanding of politics and his highly developed sense of fealty he sees owed to him.

    The former president is specifically angry over the failure to immediately endorse his 2024 White House bid by some evangelical leaders who remain influential figures in the conservative movement. Trump’s third White House run has so far failed to pick up significant energy.

    But Trump has also shown signs recently of questioning whether his purported greatest domestic achievement – the building of a generational conservative Supreme Court majority and its subsequent overturning of Roe – may end up hindering his hopes of a return to the White House in 2025. He wrote on his Truth Social platform earlier this month that the “abortion issue” had been poorly handled by many Republicans, especially those who insisted on no exceptions in the case or rape, incest or life of the mother, which he said “lost large numbers of voters.”

    The former president’s comments are backed by exit polls from November’s midterms that showed more than a quarter of voters listing abortion as a top issue. About 61% said they were unhappy with the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade, and about 7 in 10 of those voters backed a Democratic House candidate.

    In his Truth Social comments, Trump appeared to be seeking to offload blame for the Republicans’ failure to win back the Senate and the party’s smaller-than-expected House majority. Trump took on waves of criticism after the election for promoting extreme, election denying candidates who often lost in swing states in the midterm elections.

    But it is notable seeing Trump navigate the shifting politics of abortion and apparently sizing up how it could affect his political prospects in future. After all, he was once unapologetically pro-choice before his foray into Republican politics dictated a shift in position and led to the bargain with evangelicals, which included an effective commitment to appoint anti-abortion justices to the Supreme Court in return for the crucial votes of social conservatives.

    In the past, Trump has been a fixture of the March for Life rally, and in 2020, he became the first sitting president to attend in person as he geared up for his reelection race. He told marchers that “unborn children have never had a stronger defender in the White House.”

    There is no sign yet that he will call into Friday’s event, which will include a detour to the US Capitol on its usual route to the Supreme Court to underline how Congress is now a focus of the movement, as Democrats seek to codify Roe v. Wade protections into law.

    Trump’s comments on abortion and his feuding with evangelical leaders raise the question of whether the former president has made a tactical error and is harming his 2024 candidacy by targeting a critical GOP primary voting bloc at a time when there are growing questions over whether he is still the dominant force in Republican politics.

    Ralph Reed, the executive director of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, told CNN that there is “no path to the nomination without winning the evangelical vote. Nobody knows that better than President Trump because, to the surprise of almost everyone, he won their support in 2016.”

    This question is especially acute in Iowa, the first-in-the-nation caucuses – for Republicans at least – in the 2024 primary season, which will be the first test of the ex-President’s hold over conservatives and evangelicals especially.

    Trump didn’t actually win in Iowa in 2016, coming second to Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and just beating out Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, and the state has often not been a true barometer of how the GOP nominating contest will go.

    However, it will take on extra significance in 2024 and is likely to be seen as a strong indicator of Trump’s appeal to the conservative base. A loss there would create a painful narrative as he headed into subsequent contests – especially since he strongly carried the state in the general elections in 2016 and 2020.

    And it’s easy to come up with a list of potential GOP candidates that might have appeal in the state if they challenge Trump, including Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, former Vice President Mike Pence or Cruz once again. Only Trump so far is a declared 2024 Republican presidential candidate.

    Trump would be in an odd situation in 2024, in that he is in many ways effectively an incumbent given his strong support in the GOP and the fact that he didn’t go away after losing reelection. But at the same time, he’s not a sitting president and looks likely to face a contested primary and so may be more exposed in early contests.

    Still, while some conservative base voters might want to move on, there’s still strong goodwill among many toward Trump, gratitude for the change he brought during his term and admiration for his attitude.

    “Many people forgave him for his misstatements and his missteps because they generally liked his ability to fight, even if that became a cliché for some people, Trump’s detractors,” said Timothy Hagle, an associate professor of political science at the University of Iowa who is an expert on the state’s politics.

    This gets to point often missed about Trump. For many of his supporters, he offered an emotional as much as a political connection. His willingness to say what many grassroots conservatives thought and to assail institutions they despised, like the media or Washington experts and other elites, were as important as many of his often-ill-defined individual political positions.

    And it’s also often forgotten that evangelical voters in places like Iowa do not necessarily vote as a bloc, or according to what their leaders or pastors recommend and may prioritize issues such as taxes over social questions if a candidate is deemed to be generally acceptable. That may give Trump more leeway than more conventional candidates in departing from traditional conservative orthodoxy even over abortion.

    Still, Hagle said, even small numbers of disaffected Iowa voters could make a difference to Trump’s chances in the state if they don’t show up for him, as could more mainstream GOP caucus voters who may be taking a look at other aspects of his candidacy and those of potential rivals.

    “Are they going to support Trump because he fights, or because of his economic position or his position on the border?” Hagle said. “The abortion stuff may not be as important to them, or will they go a different direction at this point?”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Alabama attorney general says people who take abortion pills could be prosecuted | CNN Politics

    Alabama attorney general says people who take abortion pills could be prosecuted | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Alabama’s Republican attorney general said this week that women in the state who use prescription medication to terminate their pregnancies could be prosecuted under a chemical-endangerment law, even though Alabama’s anti-abortion law does not intend to punish women who receive abortions.

    Steve Marshall made the comments in the wake of a decision earlier this month by the US Food and Drug Administration to allow certified pharmacies to dispense the abortion medication mifepristone to people who have a prescription.

    “The Human Life Protection Act targets abortion providers, exempting women ‘upon whom an abortion is performed or attempted to be performed’ from liability under the law,” Marshall said in a statement to AL.com on Tuesday. “It does not provide an across-the-board exemption from all criminal laws, including the chemical-endangerment law—which the Alabama Supreme Court has affirmed and reaffirmed protects unborn children.”

    The chemical endangerment law was passed in 2006 amid high drug usage in Alabama with aims of protecting children from chemicals in the home, but district attorneys have successfully applied the law to protect fetuses of women who used drugs during pregnancy.

    It’s unclear if there are any pending cases against women in Alabama in the wake of the FDA’s announcement. CNN has reached out to Marshall’s office for comment.

    At least one Democrat, Alabama state Rep. Chris England, argued on Twitter that the chemical endangerment law is “extremely clear” and under it, a woman could not be prosecuted for taking a lawfully prescribed medication.

    “Any prosecutor that tries this, or threatens it, is intentionally ignoring the law,” England wrote on Thursday morning.

    Emma Roth, an attorney with Pregnancy Justice, a nonprofit that provides legal representation for women charged with crimes related to pregnancy, said on Twitter that the effect of Marshall’s comments will be to create “a culture of fear among pregnant women.”

    The comments are “extremely concerning and clearly unlawful,” Roth elaborated in a statement to CNN. “The Alabama legislature made clear its opposition to any such prosecution when it explicitly exempted patients from criminal liability under its abortion ban.”

    The chemical endangerment law says it does not require reporting controlled substances that are prescription medications “if the responsible person was the mother of the unborn child, and she was, or there is a good faith belief that she was, taking that medication pursuant to a lawful prescription.”

    Mifepristone can be used along with another medication, misoprostol, to end a pregnancy. Previously, these pills could be ordered, prescribed and dispensed only by a certified health care provider. During the Covid-19 pandemic, the FDA allowed the pills to be sent through the mail and said it would no longer enforce a rule requiring people to get the first of the two drugs in person at a clinic or hospital.

    Marshall’s comments underscore the legal uncertainty wrought by the Supreme Court’s decision last year to end the federal right to an abortion. In the wake of the Dobbs decision, several Republican-led states passed strict anti-abortion laws, while several others, including Alabama, that had passed so-called trigger laws anticipating an eventual overturn of Roe v. Wade, saw their new restrictions go into effect.

    While the anti-abortion movement seeks to prevent abortions from taking place, it has often opposed criminalizing the women who undergo the procedure.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Meet the group protecting patients from protesters outside abortion clinics | CNN Politics

    Meet the group protecting patients from protesters outside abortion clinics | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]

    A version of this story appears in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June, Planned Parenthood made a vow.

    “It is a dark day for our country, but this is far from over. We will not compromise on our bodies, our dignity or our freedom,” the organization said in a statement.

    But with more than a dozen states enacting complete or partial bans on abortion following the Supreme Court decision, abortion clinics, like those operated by Planned Parenthood, and the protests they attract have become an even more potent symbol of the country’s deep divisions over reproductive health.

    To minimize the effect these protests have on patients visiting Planned Parenthood clinics, the organization deploys volunteer clinic escorts to “help get patients to the door of our clinic with as little harassment from protesters and picketers as possible,” according to its website.

    The result is a defensive role on the front lines of America’s abortion debate.

    To understand the role and what it entails, we turned to Marian Starkey, a volunteer Planned Parenthood clinic escort in Maine who has been guiding patients past protesters at different locations since 2007.

    Our conversation, conducted over the phone in late December and lightly edited for flow and brevity, is below.

    LEBLANC: When you sign on for your clinic escort shift, what can the average day bring? I imagine every day is a little bit different.

    STARKEY: To a degree. I mean, the difference really revolves around the public’s reaction to the protesters. Honestly, the protesters are pretty consistent. It’s generally the same people who show up every Friday.

    Friday is the procedure day at Planned Parenthood. And so that’s the day that the protesters are there. They usually arrive around 8:30 in the morning and, depending on the weather, they’ll stay until 11 o’clock or sometimes later if it’s nice out.

    They show up with massive signs that barely fit in their cars. They have to kind of squish them into the back seats of their cars when they leave at the end of the shift. The signs show fetuses in very advanced stages of development and pretty, pretty gruesome images, and they’re meant to shock and disturb patients and passersby, which they do.

    They show up and they do a little prayer to start off their day. And then the men – it’s always men – will take turns preaching throughout the morning. I’ve never, in the 15 or 16 years I’ve been doing this, I’ve never seen a woman preach, always the dudes. Young ones, too.

    I mean, men as young as probably 19 or 20 sort of get on their soapbox and preach at passing traffic, at the patients entering the clinic. But mostly at us.

    STARKEY: Honestly, the patient traffic isn’t so heavy that there’s always somebody for them to be sort of focusing on. So they focus most of their attention on us greeters and try to learn personal information about us and then use that to sort of get under our skin.

    I mean, they all know my name. They know that my mom’s a midwife. I hear about that a lot – that, you know, she brings life into this world and I take it out.

    LEBLANC: Oh, wow.

    STARKEY: Yeah, so it can be pretty targeted. We have a non-engagement policy across the country, so we don’t speak with them; we try not to even acknowledge them with eye contact. And so we just kind of look right through them or look up and down the sidewalk to see what’s going on with patients and people passing by.

    And that doesn’t deter them from talking at us, but we don’t engage.

    LEBLANC: How is it that they’re learning personal information about the clinic escorts?

    STARKEY: The same way that we’re learning information about them, if I’m being honest. If they make the mistake of using each other’s names out on the sidewalk, then now we know their name.

    They coordinate with each other using a Facebook page, and so if you go to that page, you can see a lot of their activity, and it can actually be kind of useful to see what they’ve got cooking. They’ll sometimes reveal plans for future protest events that they wanna do.

    But it’s also a place to see their pictures, and so we can recognize who they are. And I imagine they do the same thing with us.

    LEBLANC: So your goal is to basically shield the people using Planned Parenthood’s facilities from as much protester activity as possible?

    STARKEY: Yeah, and to just keep the chaos to a minimum, if possible. Patients can’t tell when they turn the corner from the parking garage and start their walk down the sidewalk – they can’t tell who’s a protester and who isn’t and who’s on their side and who’s not.

    And so when they make their appointments over the phone, they’ve already been warned there are protesters. They’ve also been told that there are clinical volunteers who are wearing these bright pink vests.

    But I think sometimes that doesn’t even register for them because they’re just in such a state when they see what they have to walk through. So, you know, we’re just trying to keep things as calm as possible, and not engaging with them tends to be the best way to do that.

    People are in all sorts of different mental states when they arrive. A lot of times just the presence of the protesters will make them cry. They have to walk down almost an entire block to get from the corner where the parking garage is to the front door of the clinic. And so I’m sure that can feel like an eternity for patients when they’re already upset.

    And so a lot of times they’ll burst into tears or the partners that they’re with – their support person – will start screaming at the protesters.

    A lot of times the men are actually the targets of the abuse from the protesters. They have sort of standard lines that they shout at them, like “real men don’t kill their children” and “be a father” or “don’t kill your child,” that sort of thing.

    So yeah, it’s just chaos out there. It’s a circus.

    LEBLANC: Have you ever had someone come in that was so traumatized by the experience that they no longer want to go through with their procedure?

    STARKEY: I haven’t seen that happen. The protesters, we will hear them sometimes boast about all of the lives that they’ve saved through people changing their minds. I haven’t seen it happen. So I’m not sure what they’re referring to when they say that.

    I don’t know, maybe something’s happening behind the scenes that we’re not privy to. I’m not sure.

    We have had patients for sure who, if there weren’t greeters on the corner, would not have walked down the sidewalk by themselves, and they told us that.

    LEBLANC: You’ve been doing this a long time. I’m curious if you’ve noticed a change at all since the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade?

    STARKEY: Honestly I don’t think so. The protesters seemed happy about it, but not overjoyed. They have told us over the years in their preaching, but also just kind of the one-sided conversations they have with us, that they’re not political people. That for them, the person in charge is Jesus Christ and they’re not all that interested in the laws of man and the elected officials that we have.

    What I have noticed that’s different is that people passing by are a lot angrier.

    The morning of the decision, a man came by and just screamed in the faces of the protesters: “You finally got what you wanted, now you can get out of here.” And they just kind of calmly explained to him, “Well, no, because abortion is still legal in Maine, so we still have work to do, and we’ll be out here regardless.”

    I had never before the Dobbs decision – I had never seen people passing by grab their signs and make off with them. And now that’s happened. I mean, I’ve probably seen that five or six times now.

    [ad_2]

    Source link