ReportWire

Tag: Abortion

  • Congress passes contentious defense policy bill known as NDAA, sending it to Biden

    Congress passes contentious defense policy bill known as NDAA, sending it to Biden

    [ad_1]

    Washington — The House passed a defense policy bill Thursday that authorizes the biggest pay raise for troops in more than two decades, but also leaves behind many of the policy priorities that social conservatives were clamoring for, making for an unusually divisive debate over what is traditionally a strongly bipartisan effort.

    Lawmakers have been negotiating a final bill for months after each chamber passed strikingly different versions in July. Some of the priorities championed by social conservatives were a no-go for Democrats, so negotiators dropped them from the final product to get it over the finish line.

    The bill, known as the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, passed the House by a bipartisan vote of 310 to 118 in one of the chamber’s last acts before lawmakers leave for their holiday recess. The Senate had already voted to approve the measure on Wednesday night by a vote of 87 to 13. It now heads to President Biden’s desk for his signature.

    Most notably, the bill does not include language blocking the Pentagon’s abortion travel policy or restricting gender-affirming health care for transgender service members and dependents. Republicans prevailed, however, in winning some concessions on diversity and inclusion training in the military. For example, the bill freezes hiring for such training until a full accounting of the programming and costs is completed and reported to Congress.

    The bill sets key Pentagon policy that lawmakers will attempt to fund through a follow-up appropriations bill. Lawmakers were keen to emphasize how the bill calls for a 5.2% boost in service member pay, the biggest increase in more than 20 years. The bill authorizes $886 billion for national defense programs for the current fiscal year that began Oct. 1, about 3% more than the prior year.

    Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said the bill would ensure “America’s military remains state of the art at all times all around the world.”

    The NDAA’s extension of FISA

    The bill also includes a short-term extension of a surveillance program aimed at preventing terrorism and catching spies. But the program has detractors on both sides of the political aisle who view it as a threat to the privacy of ordinary Americans. Some House Republicans were incensed at the extension, which is designed to buy more time to reach a compromise.

    The extension, known as Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, is a program that permits the U.S. government to collect without a warrant the communications of non-Americans located outside the country to gather foreign intelligence.

    U.S. officials have said the tool, first authorized in 2008 and renewed several times since then, is crucial in disrupting terror attacks, cyber intrusions and other national security threats. It has produced vital intelligence that the U.S. has relied on for specific operations, such as the killing last year of al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri.

    But the administration’s efforts to secure reauthorization of the program have encountered strong bipartisan pushback. Democrats like Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, who has long championed civil liberties, have aligned with Republican supporters of former President Donald Trump to demand better privacy protections for Americans and have proposed a slew of competing bills.

    Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky unsuccessfully sought to keep the extension out of the defense bill. He argued that the extension would likely mean no reform to the surveillance program in the next year.

    “That means that once again the intelligence agencies that ignore the constraints on their power will go unaddressed and unpunished, and the warrantless surveillance of Americans in the violation of the Bill of Rights will continue,” Paul said.

    Enough opposition has developed within the GOP ranks that it has forced House Speaker Mike Johnson to tee up the defense policy bill for a vote through a process generally reserved for non-controversial legislation. Under that process, at least two-thirds of the House were required to pass the bill, but going that route avoided the prospect of a small number of Republicans blocking it through a procedural vote.

    While such a process eased passage of the bill, it could hurt Johnson’s standing with some of the most conservative members in the House. It only takes a few Republicans to essentially grind House proceedings to a halt or even to end a speaker’s tenure, as former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy learned when eight Republicans joined with Democrats to oust him.

    The White House called for swift passage of the defense bill, saying it “provides the critical authorities we need to build the military required to deter future conflicts while supporting the servicemembers and their spouses and families who carry out that mission every day.”

    What else is in the NDAA?

    Consideration of the bill comes at an especially dangerous time for the world, with wars taking place in Ukraine and the Middle East, and as China increasingly flexes its military might in the South China Sea.

    On Ukraine, the bill includes the creation of a special inspector general for Ukraine to address concerns about whether taxpayer dollars are being spent in Ukraine as intended. That’s on top of oversight work already being conducted by other agency watchdogs.

    “We will continue to stay on top of this, but I want to assure my colleagues that there has been no evidence of diversion of weapons provided to Ukraine or any other assistance,” the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Mike Rogers of Alabama, told lawmakers this week in advocating for the bill.

    On China, the bill establishes a new training program with Taiwan, requires a plan to accelerate deliveries of Harpoon anti-ship missiles to Taiwan, and approves an agreement that enables Australia to access nuclear-powered submarines, which are stealthier and more capable than conventionally powered vessels.

    Dozens of House Republicans are balking because the bill would keep in place a Pentagon rule that allows for travel reimbursement when a service member has to go out of state to get an abortion or other reproductive care. The Biden administration instituted the new rules after the Supreme Court overturned the nationwide right to an abortion, and some states have limited or banned the procedure.

    Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama had for months blocked the promotion of more than 400 senior military leaders over his objections to the policy. He recently dropped most of his holds except for four-star generals and admirals, but many House Republicans were supportive of his effort and had included a repeal of the reimbursement policy in the House version of the defense bill.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • A judge may rule on Wyoming's abortion laws, including the first explicit US ban on abortion pills

    A judge may rule on Wyoming's abortion laws, including the first explicit US ban on abortion pills

    [ad_1]

    CHEYENNE, Wyo. — A judge in Wyoming will decide as soon as Thursday whether to strike down, affirm or hold a trial over the state’s abortion bans, including its first-in-the-nation explicit prohibition on the use of medication to end pregnancy.

    Any decision on the bans during or after a pretrial conference before Teton County District Judge Melissa Owens in Jackson likely would be appealed to the Wyoming Supreme Court. Both sides have asked Owens to issue a ruling without holding a bench trial that is scheduled to begin April 15.

    So far, Owens has shown sympathy for arguments that the bans violate women’s rights under the state constitution. Three times over the past year and a half, the judge has blocked the laws from taking effect while they were disputed in court.

    One of the laws bans abortion except to protect to a pregnant woman’s life or in cases involving rape and incest. The other made Wyoming the only state to explicitly ban abortion pills, though other states have instituted de facto bans on the medication by broadly prohibiting abortion.

    The laws were challenged by four women, including two obstetricians, and two nonprofit organizations. One of the groups, Wellspring Health Access, opened as the state’s first full-service abortion clinic in years in April following an arson attack in 2022.

    They argued that the bans stood to harm their health, well-being and livelihoods, claims disputed by attorneys for the state. The women and nonprofits also argued the bans violated a 2012 state constitutional amendment saying competent Wyoming residents have a right to make their own health care decisions, an argument Owens has said had merit.

    Wyoming voters approved the amendment amid fears of government overreach following approval of the federal Affordable Care Act and its initial requirements for people to have health insurance.

    Attorneys for the state argued that health care, under the amendment, didn’t include abortion.

    Separately, the U.S. Supreme Court will take up a dispute over mifepristone, one of two drugs used in the most common method of ending pregnancy in the U.S.

    Wyoming has just two clinics providing abortions: Wellspring Health Access in Casper and the Women’s Health and Family Care Clinic in Jackson. The Jackson clinic provides only medication abortions and is scheduled to close Friday due to rising costs. Physicians at the clinic have said they will resume providing medication abortions elsewhere in Jackson within the next couple months if allowed.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Ted Cruz Won’t Discuss Texas’s Horrific Treatment of Woman Denied Abortion Despite Fatal Fetus Diagnosis (Because He Knows How Bad It Looks)

    Ted Cruz Won’t Discuss Texas’s Horrific Treatment of Woman Denied Abortion Despite Fatal Fetus Diagnosis (Because He Knows How Bad It Looks)

    [ad_1]

    From Barbie to Bud Light influencers to a bizarre fantasy of his own making involving “Mickey and Pluto going at it,” Ted Cruz rarely misses an opportunity to weigh in on an issue he thinks will score him some air time on Fox News and ingratiate him to the right. But apparently, even Senator “Gelatinous Tubeworm” doesn’t want to be associated with Texas’s appalling treatment of Kate Cox, the woman who had to flee the state to get a medically necessary abortion because a barbaric law and a state supreme court believes pregnant people should be subject to cruel and unusual punishment.

    Cruz was asked three separate times on Tuesday to weigh in on the matter but refused to do so, telling NBC News to speak to his press office, which didn’t respond to a request for comment. When asked again on Wednesday, the Texas lawmaker again refused.

    X content

    This content can also be viewed on the site it originates from.

    Cruz has never previously been shy about discussing reproductive matters. Before Roe v. Wade was overturned, he was the lead sponsor of a bill that would have banned the procedure after 20 weeks nationwide. Weeks before Roe was gutted, responding to a leaked draft decision indicating the Supreme Court would reverse nearly 50 years of precedent, he wrote, “If this report is true, this is nothing short of a massive victory.” After it became official, Cruz called the Dobbs v. Jackson decision a “momentous moment” and a “vindication for the rule of law.”

    It’s not clear why Cruz has chosen not to wade into the Cox matter, but it likely has to do with the fact that even he realizes how bad it makes Texas look and that it could impact his chance of reelection next November. Last week, a judge granted Cox’s request for an abortion, siding with her lawyers’ argument that the procedure was necessary to preserve future fertility and protect her from undergoing a potentially dangerous birth and tragic outcome. (Cox’s doctors had diagnosed her fetus with a genetic condition that almost always leads to miscarriage, stillbirth, or the child dying within one year.) Shortly thereafter, state attorney general Ken Paxton appealed the ruling to the Texas Supreme Court, which blocked the lower court’s order. Cox has left the state to undergo the procedure elsewhere, with the group representing her saying, “This past week of legal limbo has been hellish for Kate. Her health is on the line. She’s been in and out of the emergency room, and she couldn’t wait any longer.”

    Like Cruz—a certified weasel and a coward—Texas’s other senator, John Cornyn, has refused to weigh in on the matter, telling NBC News, “I’m not a state official, so I’m not going to comment on what state officials are doing. I’m happy to comment on anything that I’m responsible for.”

    Fox anchors once again forced to admit Joe Biden’s economy is not in the toilet

    [ad_2]

    Bess Levin

    Source link

  • Early, often and unequivocally: How Whitmer's fight for abortion rights helped turn Michigan blue

    Early, often and unequivocally: How Whitmer's fight for abortion rights helped turn Michigan blue

    [ad_1]

    LANSING, Mich. — Ten years ago, as Michigan’s Republican-led Legislature was on the verge of passing one of the nation’s most restrictive anti-abortion laws at the time, a 42-year-old state senator from East Lansing took to the Senate floor to speak out against what she knew was about to happen.

    Minutes into her speech, Democrat Gretchen Whitmer tossed aside her prepared remarks and revealed for the first time publicly that she had been raped while attending college. Had she become pregnant, Whitmer said, she would not have been able to afford an abortion under the proposed law.

    The bill, which Whitmer had derisively called “rape insurance” because it required women to declare when buying health insurance whether they expected to receive an abortion, passed anyway. But Whitmer, now in her second term as Michigan’s governor after winning reelection by nearly 11 percentage points in 2022, this week removed the requirement from state law with the stroke of a pen after Michigan’s Democratic-controlled Legislature sent her a bill tossing it aside.

    “It’s kind of a stunning full-circle moment where it does reinforce that these fights are worth having and they’re winnable, even if sometimes it takes a little longer than it should,” Whitmer said Monday in an interview with The Associated Press.

    Whitmer recalled the hundreds of calls and emails she received after her 2013 speech as a turning point for her, the moment when she realized how much people care about protecting a woman’s right to choose whether she should have an abortion. It’s a lesson she hopes to drive home all over the country as one of the nation’s leading abortion rights advocates during what could prove to be a pivotal election year for the issue in 2024.

    “The voters speak loud and clear,” she said. “And so I do think that in this moment, in this country, this is an important, crucial issue for a lot of people.”

    Abortion rights moved to the political forefront after the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022 overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that had long preserved them as a constitutional right. The court gave states the power to decide for themselves whether abortion should be legal.

    Conservative states across the country moved quickly to enact abortion bans in various forms, leading to a wave of legal fights in places such as Texas, where a pregnant woman whose fetus has a fatal condition was forced to leave the state this week to obtain an abortion. Some Republicans, including several contenders for the GOP presidential nomination, have also called for a national abortion ban.

    The political fallout at the ballot box has mostly gone in the opposite direction. Democrats did better than expected in last year’s midterms, limiting their House losses and maintaining a narrow Senate majority, and defending abortion rights worked in Democrats’ favor in several states again this year. When constitutional questions about abortion rights appeared on the ballot, even voters in Republican-leaning states from Kansas to Ohio rejected GOP-backed efforts to curb them.

    Whitmer says Democrats have won in Michigan by running unapologetically on the issue. Her party controls all levels of state government for the first time in 40 years after flipping both chambers of the Legislature last November.

    That success was fueled by a citizen-led ballot initiative to enshrine abortion rights in the state Constitution in the wake of the Supreme Court decision. Whitmer and other Michigan Democrats emphasized their support for the initiative in their 2022 election campaigns.

    President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign views the defense of abortion rights as a winning issue for Democrats in 2024. They are quick to make note of boasts by former President Donald Trump that his appointment of three conservative Supreme Court justices instigated the court’s reversal.

    Biden himself is less outspoken on the issue than other members of his party, and occasionally seems personally conflicted.

    “I happen to be a practicing Catholic. I’m not big on abortion,” he said during a June fundraiser. “But guess what? Roe v. Wade got it right.”

    Biden’s hesitancy comes as his reelection campaign faces vulnerabilities. Michigan was a critical component of the so-called blue wall of states, including Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, that Biden returned to the Democratic column, helping him win the White House in 2020.

    The president’s support in the state has wavered since the 2020 election, however, and a CNN poll released Monday showed that only 35% of respondents approved of the job he’s been doing.

    Michigan is also home to one of the largest Arab-American and Muslim communities in the nation, and many of their leaders have been vocal about saying that his pro-Israel stance on the war that began with an attack by Hamas on Oct. 7 could jeopardize his chances to win in Michigan again.

    Whitmer, who is co-chair of Biden’s reelection campaign and has herself been frequently mentioned as a future presidential candidate, deflected questions Monday about his chances in Michigan, insisting that she was only going to “focus on reproductive rights today.”

    Whitmer also said she understands that talking about abortion is “not comfortable for everyone.” But she said the chances of Republicans pushing for a federal ban on abortion should be taken seriously.

    For her, that’s reason enough to talk about abortion rights early, often and unequivocally.

    “The prospect of a national abortion ban is real,” she said. Using other words to talk about reproductive rights or being overly cautious about the issue, she said, “dilutes the importance of the moment.”

    In June, Whitmer launched a “Fight Like Hell” federal PAC to raise money for Democratic candidates who are “unapologetic in their fight for working people and their basic freedoms” heading into the 2024 election. The PAC will support candidates for Congress and other offices but also will provide financial support for Biden’s reelection bid.

    A group of eight U.S. House Democrats seeking reelection in competitive districts were announced on Tuesday as the PAC’s first endorsements.

    Since winning full legislative control, Michigan Democrats have struck down the state’s 1931 abortion ban, prohibited Michigan companies from firing or retaliating against workers for receiving an abortion and lifted regulations on abortion clinics.

    For Whitmer, those successes help justify her decision a decade ago to discuss abortion in such personal terms.

    “I think about my daughters who I was so worried to hear that their mom had been raped when they were 10 and 11 years old,” Whitmer said. “And now they’re 20 and 21, and I know they’re proud to see that I’ve stayed in this fight, and I’m trying to make life better for other women.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Texas woman leaves state to have abortion after Texas Supreme Court paused ruling that would have allowed it, her lawyers say

    Texas woman leaves state to have abortion after Texas Supreme Court paused ruling that would have allowed it, her lawyers say

    [ad_1]

    Texas court halts emergency abortion ruling


    Texas Supreme Court halts ruling allowing woman to have emergency abortion

    02:01

    Austin, Texas — A Texas woman who had sought a legal medical exemption for an abortion has left the state after the Texas Supreme Court paused a lower court decision that would allow her to have the procedure, lawyers for the Center for Reproductive Rights said Monday.  

    State District Judge Maya Guerra Gamble last week had ruled that Kate Cox, a 31-year-old mother of two from Dallas, could terminate her pregnancy. According to court documents, Cox’s doctors told her her baby suffered from the chromosomal disorder trisomy 18, which usually results in either stillbirth or an early death of an infant. 

    In response to Gamble’s decision, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton warned a Texas medical center that it would face legal consequences if an abortion were performed. 

    In an unsigned order, the Texas Supreme Court then temporarily paused Gamble’s ruling. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Texas Supreme Court pauses ruling allowing woman to obtain emergency abortion

    Texas Supreme Court pauses ruling allowing woman to obtain emergency abortion

    [ad_1]

    Texas Supreme Court pauses ruling allowing woman to obtain emergency abortion – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    The Texas Supreme Court late Friday night put a hold on a lower court ruling which would have allowed a woman who is 20 weeks pregnant with a fatal fetal diagnosis to obtain an abortion. The all-Republican state Supreme Court issued its hold without offering an opinion. Jared Hill has details.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Texas Supreme Court Blocks Woman From Having Emergency Abortion Despite Fatal Fetus Diagnosis

    Texas Supreme Court Blocks Woman From Having Emergency Abortion Despite Fatal Fetus Diagnosis

    [ad_1]

    The Texas Supreme Court temporarily halted a district court order on Friday that would have allowed a Texas woman carrying a fetus with a fatal condition to obtain an abortion, following a request from state’s Attorney General Ken Paxton.

    Kate Cox, 31, a mother of two young children in the Dallas area, is 20 weeks pregnant with a fetus that was diagnosed in late November with trisomy 18, a condition that, as Cox wrote in an op-ed, “cannot sustain life.” Her case is the first instance of a pregnant woman seeking an emergency court-ordered abortion since the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022.

    The state’s supreme court issued the one-page stay without ruling on the merits of the case, and didn’t say when it would rule definitively on it. The Friday night ruling came in response to a request from the AG, who warned the court that “each hour [the temporary restraining order] remains in place is an hour that Plaintiffs believe themselves free to perform and procure an elective abortion.” Paxton added that “nothing can restore the unborn child’s life that will be lost as a result.”

    In addition to the appeal, Paxton wrote a letter to three Houston hospitals, arguing that the district court ruling would not insulate them “from civil and criminal liability for violating Texas’ abortion laws.” Doctors convicted of illegally providing abortions in the Lone Star State can face life in prison and fines of above six figures.

    The Center for Reproductive Rights, which is representing Cox, called Paxton’s appeal “stunning in its disregard for Ms. Cox’s life, fertility, and the rule of law.”

    “While we still hope that the Court ultimately rejects the state’s request and does so quickly, in this case, we fear that justice delayed will be justice denied,” said Molly Duane, senior staff attorney at the center.

    In her lawsuit, Cox said that she would have to undergo a third cesarean section if the pregnancy continues, a procedure that would jeopardize her potential for having additional children, which she has said she wants.

    “The idea that Ms. Cox wants desperately to be pregnant, and this law might actually cause her to lose that ability, is shocking and would be a genuine miscarriage of justice,” wrote Guerra Gamble, an elected Democrat, in her ruling granting Cox access to the procedure.

    On Friday, President Joe Biden’s campaign repeatedly mentioned the actions of the Texas attorney general, a close ally of former president and current GOP frontrunner Donald Trump. “This story is shocking, it’s horrifying, and it’s heartbreaking — it’s also becoming all too commonplace in America because of Donald Trump,” Texas Representative Veronica Escobar, a Biden campaign co-chair, said in a statement. “The American people should know that Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans won’t stop here.”

    [ad_2]

    Jack McCordick

    Source link

  • The Texas Supreme Court has paused an order that allowed a pregnant woman to have an abortion despite the state's ban

    The Texas Supreme Court has paused an order that allowed a pregnant woman to have an abortion despite the state's ban

    [ad_1]

    The Texas Supreme Court has paused an order that allowed a pregnant woman to have an abortion despite the state’s ban

    ByThe Associated Press

    December 8, 2023, 10:45 PM

    AUSTIN, Texas — The Texas Supreme Court has paused an order that allowed a pregnant woman to have an abortion despite the state’s ban.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Texas Supreme Court temporarily halts ruling allowing woman to have emergency abortion

    Texas Supreme Court temporarily halts ruling allowing woman to have emergency abortion

    [ad_1]

    Texas Supreme Court temporarily halts ruling allowing Dallas woman to have abortion


    Texas Supreme Court temporarily halts ruling allowing Dallas woman to have abortion

    00:40

    The Texas Supreme Court late Friday temporarily stayed a lower court ruling that would have allowed a woman whose fetus has been diagnosed with what doctors say is a fatal disorder to have an emergency abortion.

    Kate Cox, a Dallas-area mother of two, said she found out last week that her baby suffered from the chromosomal disorder trisomy 18, which usually results in either stillbirth or an early death of an infant. The Center for Reproductive Rights filed an emergency lawsuit Monday on behalf of Cox and her husband.

    Travis County Judge Maya Guerra Gamble ruled Thursday that Cox could terminate the pregnancy.

    “While we still hope that the Court ultimately rejects the state’s request and does so quickly, in this case we fear that justice delayed will be justice denied,” said Molly Duane, senior staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights, in a news release following the state Supreme Court’s stay. “We are talking about urgent medical care. Kate is already 20 weeks pregnant. This is why people should not need to beg for healthcare in a court of law.”

    Following Thursday’s ruling, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office issued a statement saying the temporary restraining order “will not insulate hospitals, doctors, or anyone else, from civil and criminal liability for violating Texas’ abortion laws.” 

    Paxton’s office also included a letter sent to several medical centers outlining action it will take against doctors who perform an abortion. 

    According to the lawsuit, Cox, who is 20 weeks pregnant, has been to three different emergency rooms in the past month, and her doctors have told her that early screening and ultrasound tests suggested her pregnancy is “unlikely to end with a healthy baby,” and due to her two prior cesarean sections, continuing the pregnancy puts her at risk of “severe complications” that threaten “her life and future fertility.” 

    The lawsuit alleges that due to Texas’ strict abortion bans, doctors have told her their “hands are tied” and she would have to wait until the fetus dies inside her or carry the pregnancy to term, when she will have to undergo a third C-section “only to watch her baby suffer until death.”

    On Nov. 28, Cox received the results of an amniocentesis, which confirmed that her fetus suffered from a genetic condition called trisomy 18 — a diagnosis, the lawsuit says, that means her pregnancy may not last until birth and if it does, her baby will be stillborn or survive only for minutes, hours or days.

    The lawsuit was filed as the State Supreme Court is weighing whether the state’s strict abortion ban is too restrictive for women who suffer from severe pregnancy complications. An Austin judge ruled earlier this year that women who experience extreme complications could be exempt from the ban, but the ruling is on hold while the all-Republican Supreme Court considers the state’s appeal. 

    In the arguments before the state Supreme Court, the state’s lawyers suggested that a woman who is pregnant and receives a fatal fetal diagnosis could bring a “lawsuit in that specific circumstance.” 

    Texas’ abortion ban

    Texas has some of the strictest abortion laws in the country. In 2021, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed into law SB8, which bans abortions after roughly six weeks of pregnancy. A “trigger ban” also went into effect following the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that made it a felony for doctors in the state to perform an abortion unless the life of the patient is in danger. 

    Earlier this year, several women who were denied abortions despite severe pregnancy complications filed a lawsuit asking the state to clarify the strict abortion ban for medical exemptions. In July, an Austin court heard testimony from four of the women in the lawsuit as well as a Houston OB-GYN representing her patients. 

    Lead plaintiff Amanda Zurawski, who attended President Biden’s State of the Union address this year as a guest of first lady Jill Biden, testified that she was denied an emergency abortion when her water broke when she was just 18 weeks pregnant. She said she suffered from multiple medical complications and knew she would miscarry, but doctors initially told her they could not induce labor because the fetus still had a heartbeat. 

    After developing sepsis three days later, doctors finally performed an induction abortion. As a result of two bouts of sepsis, she said one of her fallopian tubes has closed permanently, and she has had to undergo several procedures to reconstruct her uterus. She said her doctor told her that the only way she could get pregnant again was through IVF. Since then, Zurawski has undergone three egg retrievals, but she and her husband still have concerns about a future pregnancy.

    What is trisomy 18?

    According to Cox, her amniocentesis revealed her fetus suffered from trisomy 18, meaning it had three copies of chromosome 18 instead of two. According to the Cleveland Clinic, heart problems are present in 90% of babies born with trisomy 18, as well as kidney disease, breathing abnormalities, gastrointestinal tract and abdominal wall issues, birth defects and spinal problems.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Pregnant woman in Kentucky sues for the right to get an abortion

    Pregnant woman in Kentucky sues for the right to get an abortion

    [ad_1]

    LOUISVILLE, Ky. — A pregnant woman in Kentucky filed a lawsuit Friday demanding the right to an abortion, the second legal challenge in days to sweeping abortion bans that have taken hold in more than a dozen U.S. states since Roe v. Wade was overturned last year.

    The suit, filed in state court in Louisville, says Kentucky’s near-total prohibition of abortion violates the plaintiff’s rights to privacy and self-determination under the state constitution.

    The plaintiff, identified as Jane Doe, is about eight weeks pregnant and she wants to have an abortion in Kentucky but cannot legally do so because of the state’s ban, the suit said. She is seeking class-action status to include other Kentuckians who are or will become pregnant and want to have an abortion.

    “I am a proud Kentuckian and I love the life my family and I have here, but I’m angry that now that I’m pregnant and do not want to be,” the plaintiff said in a statement released by the American Civil Liberties Union, one of the groups backing her challenge. “The government is interfering in my private matters and blocking me from having an abortion. This is my decision, not the government or any other person’s.”

    Republican state Attorney General Daniel Cameron’s office said it is reviewing the suit but offered no other comments. Cameron’s office has defended the state’s anti-abortion laws in other court proceedings.

    The filing in Kentucky comes a day after a judge in Texas gave a pregnant woman whose fetus has a fatal diagnosis permission to get an abortion. The temporary restraining order issued Thursday stops Texas from enforcing the state’s ban on the woman, who is 20 weeks pregnant, and lasts for 14 days. Her attorneys afterward spoke cautiously about any wider impacts, and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton insisted that the order would not insulate any medical practitioners from any civil or criminal liability.

    Unlike the case in Texas, little is known about the Kentucky plaintiff or her pregnancy. Legal challenges currently taking place across the country have largely highlighted the stories from women who were denied abortions while facing harrowing pregnancy complications.

    But in Kentucky, the plaintiff’s attorneys insisted they would fiercely protect their client’s privacy, stressing that Jane Doe believes “everyone should have the right to make decisions privately and make decisions for their own families,” said Amber Duke, executive director for the ACLU of Kentucky.

    Earlier this year, Kentucky’s Supreme Court refused to halt the state’s near-total abortion ban and another outlawing abortion after the sixth week of pregnancy. The justices focused on narrow legal issues but didn’t resolve larger constitutional questions about whether access to abortion should be legal in the Bluegrass State.

    The ACLU, Planned Parenthood and other activists say they’ve been searching for a plaintiff ever since that February ruling. The suit filed Friday marks the launch of their new assault against the state’s abortion bans.

    “These bans have harmed countless Kentuckians since going into effect last year, and we are relieved to be back in court to try to restore abortion access in Kentucky,” Brigitte Amiri, deputy director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, said in the news release.

    The lawsuit says Kentucky woman are suffering “medical, constitutional and irreparable harm” by being denied the right to obtain an abortion.

    “Abortion is a critical component of reproductive healthcare and crucial to the ability of Kentuckians to control their lives,” the suit says.

    “Whether to take on the health risks and responsibilities of pregnancy and parenting is a personal and consequential decision that must be left to the individual to determine for herself without governmental interference,” it added.

    Kentucky voters last year rejected a ballot measure that would have denied any constitutional protections for abortion, but abortion rights supporters have made no inroads in the Republican-controlled Legislature in chipping away at the state’s anti-abortion laws.

    The legal challenge revolves around Kentucky’s near-total trigger law ban and a separate six-week ban — both passed by Republican lawmakers. The trigger law was passed in 2019 and took effect when Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022. It bans abortions except when they’re carried out to save the life of the patient or to prevent disabling injury. It does not include exceptions for cases of rape or incest.

    ___

    Kruesi reported from Nashville, Tennessee.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Texas judge grants woman an emergency abortion

    Texas judge grants woman an emergency abortion

    [ad_1]

    Texas judge grants woman an emergency abortion – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    A Texas judge on Thursday granted an emergency abortion to a woman who is 20 weeks pregnant with a fetus that has a fatal genetic abnormality. The emergency order applies only to the 31-year-old mother of two and ensures her doctor will not face penalties. Janet Shamlian has details on the ruling.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Texas Judge Allows Woman to Get Abortion Despite Barbaric State Law Saying She Must Continue Nonviable Pregnancy That Could Leave Her Infertile

    Texas Judge Allows Woman to Get Abortion Despite Barbaric State Law Saying She Must Continue Nonviable Pregnancy That Could Leave Her Infertile

    [ad_1]

    A Texas judge on Thursday granted the request of a pregnant woman—who was diagnosed with a nonviable pregnancy that has sent her to the emergency room four times—to undergo an abortion. The ruling came in spite of Texas’s near-total ban on the medical procedure, and while obviously welcome news for the woman in question, underscores the living hell that is Texas and other states that think they should get to decide what happens to pregnant people’s bodies.

    Siding with the woman, Kate Cox, who argued the procedure is necessary to preserve future fertility and protect her from undergoing a potentially dangerous birth, Judge Maya Guerra Gamble said, “The idea that Ms. Cox wants desperately to be pregnant, and this law might actually cause her to lose that ability, is shocking, and would be a genuine miscarriage of justice. So I will be signing the order, and it will be processed and sent out today.” Cox, a married mother of two who said in an interview that she and her husband want a large family, was told by doctors that her fetus had a genetic condition that almost always leads to miscarriage, stillbirth, or the child dying within one year. Her attorneys told the judge that despite this—and the fact that pain and discharge had sent her to the emergency room numerous times—her doctors had told her state law dictated she had to continue the pregnancy.

    Despite Guerra Gamble making clear that her order protects Cox’s doctor and anyone else at the hospital who might be involved in the procedure, Attorney General Ken Paxton sent a letter to hospital officials in Houston following the ruling saying Cox’s doctor and the hospital staff may still face criminal and civil penalties. “The T.R.O. will not insulate you, or anyone else,” Paxton, an evil little man, added that the order would expire “long before the statute of limitations for violating Texas’ abortion laws expires.” (Doctors convicted of performing an illegal abortion in the state face up to 99 years and fines of at least $100,000.)

    Since Roe v. Wade was overturned last year, more than a dozen states have outright banned or significantly restricted the procedure. The man responsible for Roe being gutted is currently the front-runner for the GOP nomination.

    [ad_2]

    Bess Levin

    Source link

  • Texas judge to consider pregnant woman's request for order allowing her to have an abortion

    Texas judge to consider pregnant woman's request for order allowing her to have an abortion

    [ad_1]

    AUSTIN, Texas — Texas’ strict abortion ban will face an unprecedented test Thursday, when a judge considers a request for an emergency court order that would allow a pregnant woman whose fetus has a fatal diagnosis to have an abortion in the state.

    The lawsuit filed by Kate Cox, a 31-year-old mother of two from the Dallas area, is believed to be the first of its kind in the nation since the U.S. Supreme Court last year overturned Roe v. Wade, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights, which is representing Cox.

    Since that landmark ruling, Texas and 12 other states rushed to ban abortion at nearly all stages of pregnancy. Opponents have sought to weaken those bans — including an ongoing Texas challenge over whether the state’s law is too restrictive for women with pregnancy complications — but until now, a woman has not gone to court seeking approval for an immediate abortion.

    “I do not want to continue the pain and suffering that has plagued this pregnancy or continue to put my body or my mental health through the risks of continuing this pregnancy,” Cox wrote in an editorial published in The Dallas Morning News. “I do not want my baby to arrive in this world only to watch her suffer.”

    Although Texas allows exceptions under the ban, doctors and women have argued that the requirements are so vaguely worded that physicians still won’t risk providing abortions, lest they face potential criminal charges or lawsuits.

    The lawsuit was filed against the Texas attorney general’s office, which has defended the ban in court, and the state’s medical board. Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office has not responded to requests for comment.

    Cox is 20 weeks pregnant and has been told by doctors that her baby is likely to be stillborn or live for a week at most, according to the lawsuit filed in Austin. The suit says doctors told her their “hands are tied” under Texas’ abortion ban.

    The lawsuit was filed a week after the Texas Supreme Court heard arguments about whether the ban is too restrictive for women with pregnancy complications. That case is among the biggest ongoing challenges to abortion bans in the U.S., although a ruling from the all-Republican court may not come for months.

    Cox, a mother of two, had cesarean sections with her previous pregnancies. She learned she was pregnant for a third time in August and was told weeks later that her baby was at a high risk for a condition known as trisomy 18, which has a very high likelihood of miscarriage or stillbirth and low survival rates, according to the lawsuit.

    Doctors told Cox that if the baby’s heartbeat were to stop, inducing labor would carry a risk of a uterine rupture because of her prior cesareans, and that another C-section at full term would would endanger her ability to carry another child.

    In July, several Texas women gave emotional testimony about carrying babies they knew would not survive and doctors unable to offer abortions despite their spiraling conditions. A judge later ruled that Texas’ ban was too restrictive for women with pregnancy complications, but that decision was swiftly put on hold after the state appealed.

    More than 40 woman have received abortions in Texas since the ban took effect, according to state health figures, none of which have resulted in criminal charges. There were more than 16,000 abortions in Texas in the five months prior to the ban taking effect last year.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What to Know About the Texas Woman Suing the State to Get an Abortion

    What to Know About the Texas Woman Suing the State to Get an Abortion

    [ad_1]

    A Texas woman filed an emergency lawsuit on Tuesday to ask the state for permission to have an abortion. 

    Kate Cox, a 31-year-old mother of two filed a temporary restraining order and permanent injunction, asking the court to allow her to terminate her pregnancy at 20 weeks because she received a diagnosis of a fatal fetal condition. Dr. Damla Karsan, a board certified OB/GYN who would perform the abortion on Cox if permitted, is the second plaintiff in the lawsuit. 

    The case is the first of its kind in 50 years, and heralds a burdensome new legal strategy for pregnant people navigating the complex legal landscape of abortion after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year.

    Texas has one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the U.S., prohibiting abortion beginning at six weeks, before many women know they are pregnant. Cox’s case seeks both to obtain an abortion and to clarify exceptions to Texas’ abortion restrictions, which could resolve some ambiguity for patients and doctors and pave the way for women in other states with abortion bans to file similar suits..  

    “The court is being invited into this agonizing decision-making that this woman is having in choosing between the health of her life and the future of her living children,” says ​​Missy Owen, co-chair of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers’ Criminalization of Reproductive Health Taskforce. “She is opening the doors for the court, saying, ‘I do not want to be committing a crime, but the situation in front of me is impossible.’”

    What is the case about? 

    In Cox v. Texas, the plaintiffs are asking the court to allow Karsan to perform an abortion on Cox because her fetus has Trisomy 18, also called Edwards syndrome. The condition causes abnormalities—Cox’s baby, the lawsuit says, has a “spine abnormality,” umbilical hernia, clubbed foot, and other conditions.

    Cox’s physicians have recommended an abortion. Children with Trisomy 18 have a greater risk for miscarriage or stillbirth and research shows that only 1 in 2 babies who are carried to term will be born alive. Most only survive for a few days, and only about 90-95% of babies do not live beyond the first year, the Minnesota Department of Health reports.

    According to the case filing, Cox is currently 20 weeks pregnant and has been to three different emergency rooms because of “severe cramping and unidentifiable fluid leaks.” Cox is also at higher risk for complications because she previously had two Cesareans, has elevated glucose levels, and other underlying health conditions. 

    Cox is filing the case to ask that the court clarify its abortion regulations. The case filing says that Cox cannot wait for the Texas Supreme Court to release its decision on a separate lawsuit, Zurawski v. Texas. That case, filed in March, asks the court to clarify under which medical exemptions OB/GYNs could perform abortions. A Travis county judge previously ruled that patients who have medical issues that could threaten their life, or have a lethal fetal diagnosis, should be exempt from existing abortion regulations. But Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton appealed that ruling. 

    Stakes of the case  

    Nicholas Kabat, an attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights, which filed the case, says this lawsuit is not looking to overturn all of the state’s abortion bans, but asks for greater clarification of when physicians can perform an abortion. 

    If the court rules in Cox’s favor, that means she would legally be able to terminate her pregnancy. It also means that the physician who performs the abortion, and her spouse—who could be held liable for aiding an abortion under Texas S.B. 8—would not face punishment. However, legal experts warn that there is still the possibility that someone will appeal the decision, which would delay Cox from accessing an abortion. 

    But the stakes go beyond Cox and her family. University of Virginia School of Law professor Naomi Cahn notes the lawsuit could help other pregnant people who live in states with similar abortion bans. “It would show them that it might be possible for them to get an abortion,” Cahn says.

    Even if the court rules in Cox’s favor, barriers would remain for many women to employ a similar strategy. Finding legal representation can be costly and difficult. There also can be an emotional and physical toll to seeking an abortion through the judicial system: “The notion that anyone would have to publicly advocate to a court their personal circumstances to be able to get justification feels like a violation,” says Owen. “That she (Cox) would have to file on a docket in a courthouse where anybody can read the complaint and it can be plastered all over every publication in America…that’s an enormous sacrifice.”

    Kabat says this has been difficult for Cox. “Imagine that you are grieving the loss of a very desired pregnancy. Kate wants to carry. She has two children, and she wanted to have a third,” says Kabat. “So she’s grieving a loss of a pregnancy and at the same time, she’s being told by her doctors that she needs to end this pregnancy now in order to be able to have kids in the future.” 
    There’s added time pressure on cases like these as the pregnancy progresses. “The consequence of the state’s strategy here is that in the middle of a time-sensitive and devastating pregnancy crisis, a woman like Kate may have to be forced out of state,” Kabat says. “This is a situation where she’s not only facing potential loss for fertility, but life threatening risks. And the state cannot force a woman to take on those risks just because the state is opposed to abortion.”

    [ad_2]

    Solcyre Burga

    Source link

  • A Plan to Outlaw Abortion Everywhere

    A Plan to Outlaw Abortion Everywhere

    [ad_1]

    The year 2022 was a triumphant one for the anti-abortion movement. After half a century, the Supreme Court did what had once seemed impossible when it overturned Roe v. Wade, stripping Americans of the constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy. Now movement activists are feeling bolder than ever: Their next goal will be ending legal abortion in America once and for all. A federal ban, which would require 60 votes in the Senate, is unlikely. But some activists believe there’s a simpler way: the enforcement by a Trump Justice Department of a 150-year-old obscenity law.

    Explore the January/February 2024 Issue

    Check out more from this issue and find your next story to read.

    View More

    The Comstock Act, originally passed in 1873 to combat vice and debauchery, prohibits the mailing of any “article or thing” that is “designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use.” In the law’s first 100 years, a series of court cases narrowed its scope, and in 1971, Congress removed most of its restrictions on contraception. But the rest of the Comstock Act has remained on the books. The law has sat dormant, considered virtually unenforceable, since the Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973.

    Following the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision in 2022, the United States Postal Service asked the Justice Department for clarification: Could its workers legally transport abortion-inducing medications to states with bans? The DOJ replied by issuing a memo stipulating that abortion pills can be legally mailed as long as the sender does not intend for the drugs to be used unlawfully. And whether or not the drugs will be used within the bounds of state law, the memo notes, would be difficult for a sender to know (the pills have medical uses unrelated to abortion).

    If Donald Trump is reelected president, many prominent opponents of abortion rights will demand that his DOJ issue its own memo, reinterpreting the law to mean the exact opposite: that Comstock is a de facto ban on shipping medication that could end a pregnancy, regardless of its intended use (this would apply to the USPS and to private carriers like UPS and FedEx). “The language is black-and-white. It should be enforced,” Steven H. Aden, the general counsel at Americans United for Life, told me. A broader interpretation of the Comstock Act might also mean that a person receiving abortion pills would be committing a federal crime and, if prosecuted, could face prison time. Federal prosecutors could bring charges against abortion-pill manufacturers, providers receiving pills in the mail, or even individuals.

    The hopes of some activists go further. Their ultimate aim in reviving the Comstock Act is to use it to shut down every abortion facility “in all 50 states,” Mark Lee Dickson, a Texas pastor and anti-abortion advocate, told me. Taken literally, Comstock could be applied to prevent the transport of all supplies related to medical and surgical abortions, making it illegal to ship necessary tools and medications to hospitals and clinics, with no exceptions for other medical uses, such as miscarriage care. Conditions that are easily treatable with modern medicine could, without access to these supplies, become life-threatening.

    Legal experts say that the activists’ strategy could, in theory, succeed—at least in bringing the issue to court. “It’s not hypothetical anymore,” Mary Ziegler, a law professor at the UC Davis School of Law, told me. “Because it’s already on the books, and it’s not ridiculous to interpret it this way, [the possibility] is not far-fetched at all.”

    Eventually, the Supreme Court would likely face pressure to weigh in. Even though a majority of the Court’s justices have supported abortion restrictions and ruled to overturn Roe, it’s unclear how they’d rule on this particular case. If they were to uphold the broadest interpretation of the Comstock Act, doctors even in states without bans could struggle to legally obtain the supplies they need to provide abortions and perform other procedures.

    This is what activists want. The question is whether Trump would accede to their demands. After years of championing the anti-abortion cause, the former president seemed to pivot when he blamed anti-abortion Republicans’ extremism for the party’s poor performance in the 2022 midterm elections (only a small fraction of Americans favors a complete abortion ban). Recently, he’s come across as more moderate on the issue than his primary opponents by condemning Florida’s six-week abortion ban and endorsing compromise with Democrats.

    As president, Trump might choose not to enforce Comstock at all. Or he could order his DOJ to enforce it with discretion, promising to go after drug manufacturers and Planned Parenthood instead of individuals. It’s hard to be certain of any outcome: Trump has always been more interested in appeasing his base than reaching Americans in the ideological middle. He might well be in favor of aggressively enforcing the Comstock Act, in order to continue bragging, as he has in the past, that he is “the most pro-life president in American history.”


    This article appears in the January/February 2024 print edition with the headline “A Plan to Outlaw Abortion Everywhere.”

    [ad_2]

    Elaine Godfrey

    Source link

  • Mike Johnson Did Legal Work for the Leader of the “Largest Militant Antiabortion Group” in America: Report

    Mike Johnson Did Legal Work for the Leader of the “Largest Militant Antiabortion Group” in America: Report

    [ad_1]

    In the six weeks since Mike Johnson was elected Speaker of the House, we’ve learned a large amount of what can only be described as “deeply f–ked-up s–t” concerning the GOP lawmaker’s views on everything from gay marriage to abortion to the cause of mass shootings to why America is apparently going to hell. And unfortunately, there’s a lot more f–ked-up s–t where that came from.

    The Daily Beast reports that before he got into politics, the man who is two heartbeats away from the presidency did legal work for clients “affiliated with some of the nation’s most extreme antiabortion and anti-LGBTQ groups in the country—including agitators connected to militant movements with a penchant for violent expression.”

    One of those clients was Jason Storms, whom Johnson, in his capacity as an attorney for the Christian activist group Alliance Defending Freedom, represented in a 2009 Milwaukee lawsuit, arguing that Storms and a bunch of other antiabortion extremists had had their right to free speech violated by a court injunction against protests at abortion clinics. Who is Storms? Among other things, he’s the leader of Operation Save America—formerly know as Operation Rescue—which, as the Daily Beast notes, “has been called the nation’s largest militant antiabortion group,” and it’s not hard to see why. Per the outlet:

    …the year of [the free speech] lawsuit, Operation Rescue was tied to the murder of Kansas abortion provider Dr. George Tiller. The killer had been in touch with a group official about Tiller’s whereabouts, and claimed to be a member. While the group denounced the slaying and the attacker’s claims to membership, Tiller was a top target of Operation Rescue’s ire for years—in 2002, they relocated their headquarters to Wichita specifically to pressure his clinic—and its leader at the time had previously called the murder of abortion providers a “justifiable defensive action.”

    Today, OSA and its militant allies still believe women who get abortions should be charged with murder—a step up from more mainstream antiabortionists who would only place that burden on the doctor…. Earlier this year, a member of OSA was charged in connection with a bomb scare at a Milwaukee-area Pride event, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported. In October, the Sixth Circuit of Federal Appeals upheld a 2022 restraining order against the group, after unruly demonstrations in Tennessee.

    In addition to Storms—who incidentally took part in January 6—the group of extremists Johnson represented in the 2009 suit included Robert Breaud and Jim Soderna. Here’s a little background info on those two, per the Daily Beast:

    In 1999, Soderna entered his name in the public record as opposing a Milwaukee city council resolution “against domestic terrorism in the form of violence against health-care providers, especially those providing family planning services.” Meanwhile, Breaud—a self-described former “homosexual”—ran a 1999 failed campaign for the Louisiana state House as a Republican. Per an article from The Times-Picayune, which is not publicly available online but accessible through the Lexis Nexis publication database, Breaud said the government “should be a terror to the evildoer”—quoting the apostle Paul in the Bible—further specifying, as Paul did not, that the evildoers were gay men, lesbians, and abortion providers.

    And the disturbing cast of characters doesn’t stop there. As the Daily Beast notes, Johnson’s 2009 suit “was bolstered by affidavits from Jason Storms’s father-in-law, militant antiabortionist Rev. Matthew Trewhella…[who] previously defended the murder of abortion doctors as ‘justifiable homicide.’” Trewhella also encouraged religious congregations to form militias, according to The New York Times, and spent 14 months in prison for obstructing abortion clinics. Later, per the Daily Beast, he “ran an Operation Rescue splinter group, called Missionaries to the Pre-Born, which also featured Jason Storms”; the offshoot has been called “one of the most dangerous and violent of the direct action antiabortion groups active in the United States.”

    By the way: Johnson also did legal work for Jason Storms’s father, Grant Storms, who was once in the news for seemingly endorsing the mass murder of gay people. Regarding his comments, he initially told the Daily Beast that he obviously never meant gay people should be killed en masse, but then he acknowledged that he could see why people might have “misinterpreted” his words to mean as much. (Johnson represented the elder Storms both before and after these comments.) Grant Storms told the Daily Beast that Johnson performed all of his legal work for him for free, noting that they “were brothers on the path.” He added: “He always had our back.”

    In response to a request for comment, Johnson’s office told the outlet: “As a practicing attorney for over 20 years, Johnson defended the First Amendment rights of countless clients. As the Daily Beast surely knows, an attorney representing a client in a First Amendment dispute does not equate to an endorsement of everything that client has ever said or done prior to or after a case.”

    [ad_2]

    Bess Levin

    Source link

  • Tuberville is ending blockade of most military nominees, clearing way for hundreds to be approved

    Tuberville is ending blockade of most military nominees, clearing way for hundreds to be approved

    [ad_1]

    Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama says he is ending his blockade of hundreds of military promotions, clearing the way for hundreds to be approved

    ByKEVIN FREKING Associated Press

    December 5, 2023, 1:35 PM

    FILE – Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, talks to reporters as he and other senators arrive at the chamber for votes, at the Capitol in Washington, Wednesday, Sept. 6, 2023. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

    The Associated Press

    WASHINGTON — Sen. Tommy Tuberville announced on Tuesday that he’s ending his blockade of hundreds of military promotions, following heavy criticism from many of his colleagues in the Senate and clearing the way for hundreds to be approved.

    Tuberville’s blockade of military promotions was over a dispute about a Pentagon abortion policy. The Alabama Republican said Tuesday he’s “not going to hold the promotions of these people any longer.”

    Almost 400 military nominations have been in limbo due to Tuberville’s blanket hold on confirmations and promotions for senior military officers. It’s a stance that has left key national security positions unfilled and military families with an uncertain path forward.

    Tuberville was blocking the nominations in opposition to new Pentagon rules that allow reimbursement for travel when a service member has to go out of state to get an abortion or other reproductive care. President Joe Biden’s administration instituted the new rules after the Supreme Court overturned the nationwide right to an abortion, and some states have limited or banned the procedure.

    Critics said that Tuberville’s ire was misplaced and that he was blocking the promotions of people who had nothing to do with the policy he opposed.

    “Why are we punishing American heroes who have nothing to with the dispute?” said Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska. “Remember we are against the Biden abortion travel policy, but why are we punishing people who have nothing to do with the dispute and if they get confirmed can’t fix it? No one has had an answer for that question because there is no answer.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Column: Newsom and DeSantis have the spotlight, but they don’t have a chance. Harris and Haley might

    Column: Newsom and DeSantis have the spotlight, but they don’t have a chance. Harris and Haley might

    [ad_1]

    The culmination of the Newsom-DeSantis bromance is upon us, the mano a mano matchup of two governors who depend on each other to whip up the kind of polarizing frenzy that feeds headlines and advances careers.

    They will hold a debate Thursday night on Fox News, moderated by far-right provocateur Sean Hannity, an event that has been hyped so much you’d be forgiven for thinking the stakes were high, that this made-for-television stunt actually matters.

    Which, of course, it does not.

    “It’s political theater in its most ridiculous form,” Mindy Romero told me. She’s the director of the Center for Inclusive Democracy at the USC Sol Price School of Public Policy. “This doesn’t benefit the voters.”

    If we wanted something substantial, something that might change the results of the next election, we’d put Republican hopeful Nikki Haley in the room with Vice President Kamala Harris — two daughters of immigrants (Haley is South Asian, Harris is mixed-race, South Asian and Black) with differing views of America but the shared ability to reach apathetic and disenfranchised voters. But I’ll get to that.

    While the spectacle of Newsom and DeSantis going at each other may provide zingers and red-blue outrage, it is unlikely to sway voters because neither man is an actual contender for anything.

    DeSantis’ presidential campaign is sinking, and not even platform shoes can keep his head above water. Even in the unlikely circumstance that he humiliated Newsom with an unexpected bout of superior wit and grasp of fact, it wouldn’t make up for his fundraising problems, falling poll numbers or the orange elephant in the room, Donald Trump, who is leaps and bounds ahead of any other Republican contenders when it comes to dedicated voters.

    Then there is Newsom, who is absolutely, positively not running for president, though his team has put together a surprisingly successful and smart campaign to position him as a Biden surrogate, ready to step in if needed. And, as I have said before, I appreciate Newsom speaking out, and taking action, on issues including reproductive freedom.

    The problem is he’s not needed, this time around, anyway.

    And so, we have spectacle without substance when it comes to the Newsom-DeSantis drama. As the first female British prime minister Margaret Thatcher put it in 1965, “If you want something said, ask a man; if you want something done, ask a woman.”

    Or as Romero said, “Isn’t that what we always see, two male politicians louder and bolder, taking the spotlight from women of color? I am not surprised by this at all.”

    It may not be surprising, but it is concerning to see that spotlight in the wrong place.

    The presidential election is going to be close. The votes on the margins will likely decide whether Biden holds the Oval Office or not. Key among those iffy ballots, for both parties, are younger people and voters of color.

    Those are votes that Harris and Haley are well-positioned to earn — but also ones that, if left unattended, could cost the race for either side.

    If Americans under the age of 45 vote at the same rate as they did in 2020, a recent Brookings Institute poll found, they will account for more than one-third of the electorate.

    But young voters are not happy.

    Young Republicans have a generational split over access to abortions. Nearly three-fourths of adults under age 30 say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, according to a 2022 Pew Research poll. The Brookings poll found 47% of Republicans ages 18 to 44 voiced similar opinions.

    In the past few weeks, Haley has gained momentum and won critical support in positioning herself as a post-MAGA candidate — even attempting, not always successfully, to find a less strident way to speak about abortion while still supporting bans.

    Recently, Haley earned a critical endorsement from the conservative grassroots organization Americans for Prosperity Action, which was co-founded by billionaire Charles Koch and comes with not only money, but the political machine to back it up.

    Her rallies are drawing bigger crowds and her poll numbers show that in places where DeSantis’ numbers are slipping, she is gaining.

    She’s still nowhere close to being a real challenger to Trump, but she is offering up a path forward for Republicans who want a Trump-lite government, all the conservatism without the overt turn toward authoritarianism. Anything that pulls Republicans away from straight-up fascism should be considered significant, particularly as DeSantis tries to out-Trump Trump with anti-everything policies targeting history, LGBTQ+ communities, Disneyland and more.

    For Democrats, the problem with young voters, especially people of color, is apparent around the Biden administration’s response to the fighting in Israel and Gaza. His administration, even with its commitment to climate change, gun control and economic priorities such as canceling student loan debt, seems out of touch.

    About 70% of people 18 to 34 disapprove of Biden’s handling of the Israel-Hamas war, an NBC News poll found. Many of those young progressives see the Palestinian cause as linked to social justice issues for communities of color in the United States.

    Dov Waxman, director of the UCLA Y&S Nazarian Center for Israel Studies, said he believes the anger of those young progressives may fade by the 2024 elections, but their apathy may still keep them from voting.

    Biden “has kind of a broader, deeper problem with younger voters and certainly this has exacerbated it,” Waxman said.

    Adrianne Shropshire, executive director of BlackPAC, which helps organize Black voters, said Harris is critical to countering that apathy, and is “uniquely positioned in many ways because of her identities,” to reach disaffected groups.

    Despite endless attacks that Harris faces from Republicans (and even from within her own party), which often use the prospect of a Harris presidency as a kind of threat, “there is a real connection she makes with Black voters,” Shropshire said.

    And though she faces a relentless narrative that she is unlikable, as Hillary Clinton did, the idea that she might be kicked off the ticket in favor of someone more palatable such as Newsom is a non-starter — a disastrous misread of voters of color, young, progressive voters and women.

    “They’re not going to dump her. They can’t dump her,” Dan Morain told me. He’s the author of the definitive biography on Harris, “Kamala’s Way,” and has chronicled her career since she was a lowly prosecutor.

    Instead, Morain, Shropshire and others said the administration needs to better use her identity and skills in the next campaign cycle, leaning into who she is — leaning into who voters are.

    “You just look at Harris and what she does, She’s just she is more attuned to younger people than [Biden] ever will be,” Morain said.

    And so we have two interesting women, closer to the Oval Office than either Newsom or DeSantis will likely be anytime soon (though I’d give Newsom a shot in 2028).

    Haley and Harris are both seasoned, tough survivors who have more in common with most American voters — who are increasingly not white, much to the chagrin of some — but who are stymied by their sex as has been every woman who has ever run for office.

    Trump has nicknamed Haley “birdbrain.” Harris’ laugh has been described as a “cackle.”

    But Newsom and DeSantis are, as Hannity put it, are “two heavyweights” who are “stepping into a war.”

    They definitely have something that Harris and Haley lack, but it’s not a shot at the presidency.

    [ad_2]

    Anita Chabria

    Source link

  • PolitiFact – Do Florida women, doctors face felony charges for abortions? Fact-checking Gavin Newsom ad

    PolitiFact – Do Florida women, doctors face felony charges for abortions? Fact-checking Gavin Newsom ad

    [ad_1]

    California’s Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom and Florida’s Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis have long feuded over which state has the most freedoms and protections. Both are set to debate Nov. 30 on Fox News.

    Newsom recently said on X, formerly Twitter, that some women who have abortions in Florida, and the doctors who perform the procedure, could be jailed.

    “Any woman who has an abortion after six weeks — and any doctor who gives her care — will be guilty of a felony. Abortion after six weeks will be punishable by up to 5 years in prison,” Newsom posted on X Nov. 19. “That’s not freedom. That’s Ron DeSantis’ Florida.”

    Newsom also shared an ad by his political action committee, Campaign for Democracy, that shows a “wanted” billboard and mug shots of women and people in white lab coats who appear to be physicians.

    Newsom narrates the ad and says: “Wanted, by order of Governor Ron DeSantis: Any woman who has an abortion after six weeks and any doctor who gives her care will be guilty of a felony. Abortion after six weeks will be punishable by up to five years in prison.”

    In April, DeSantis approved a bill that said anyone who “actively participates in” an abortion after six weeks of pregnancy commits a felony. That law would take effect if the Florida Supreme Court upholds a related 2022 law.

    But who the felony charge applies to is up for debate. Although the 2023 law is clear that physicians can be charged, whether pregnant women will face the same charge is ambiguous. 

    DeSantis has said he does not want to jail women who have abortions.

    Florida law says actively participating in an abortion is a felony

    Nathan Click, Newsom’s political adviser, cited as evidence Florida’s 2023 “Heartbeat Protection Act.” That law says physicians may not perform most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. A subsequent section on penalties says that “any person who willfully performs, or actively participates in, a termination of pregnancy” commits a felony of the third degree. 

    That charge carries up to five years in prison.

    The penalty language regarding someone who “participates in” an abortion was carried over to the 2023 law from a 1990s law.

    Florida Democratic lawmakers have introduced bills to modify the law to say that it does not apply to pregnant women who terminate their pregnancies.

    Law professors told PolitiFact that if lawmakers wanted only physicians to be charged, they could have specified that in the law.

    “I don’t think statute or case law or anything else gives you a clear answer” on whether the law punishes women or just people helping them with an abortion, said Mary Ziegler, a law professor and expert on abortion law at University of California, Davis.

    The law “doesn’t rule out women being prosecuted, even if it doesn’t explicitly say they will or won’t be,” Ziegler said.

    The phrases “any person” and “actively participates” would leave the matter open for any local law enforcement’s discretion, Georgetown law professor Michele Bratcher Goodwin said.

    DeSantis in a September CBS News interview said the penalties in the 2023 law are for the medical practitioners, not the pregnant women, his campaign told PolitiFact.

    Nationwide, some Republican lawmakers have supported bills that punish women with prison time for abortions, but this is not a widely embraced idea throughout the anti-abortion movement.

    State court in 1997 said women can’t be criminally liable for abortions

    DeSantis’ office told PolitiFact that when DeSantis says the penalties won’t apply to women, he’s referring to a 1997 Florida Supreme Court case, State v. Ashley, about a pregnant teenager who shot herself, leading to her baby’s death 15 days later.

    Authorities charged the teen with murder, but the court said she shouldn’t have been charged, because state law did not criminalize her conduct. The court cited past rulings that said women who had abortions were the “victim,” not the offender.

    DeSantis spokesperson Jeremy Redfern said that the “Florida Supreme Court precedent has affirmed the longstanding common law doctrine preventing a pregnant woman from being held criminally liable for receiving an abortion.”

    But law professors say we can’t conclude that the current Florida Supreme Court will take the same stance from decades ago, given nationwide changes in abortion law.

    In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, which protected abortion access federally. The Florida Supreme Court could soon rule in favor of the 15-week limit, which would contradict earlier rulings that protected abortion rights. DeSantis appointed five of the seven justices.

    “If the current Florida Supreme Court is willing to overrule precedent on whether the Florida Constitution protects the right to abortion, it may be willing to overrule precedent on whether ambiguous abortion bans cover the pregnant person as well,” said Caroline Mala Corbin, a University of Miami School of Law professor.

    What we are left with here is “a lot of TBD,” said Ziegler.

    Our ruling

    Newsom claimed that in Florida, “any woman who has an abortion after six weeks — and any doctor who gives her care — will be guilty of a felony.”

    DeSantis signed a bill banning most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. The 2023 law says that anyone who “actively participates in” an abortion commits a third-degree felony.

    The law penalizes physicians. The question is whether it would allow for criminalizing women for their abortions. The ad makes it sound like that is settled. It’s not.

    Legal experts say the law’s vague language opens the door to prosecutors charging women, but we don’t yet know whether they will and how courts would respond to such charges. The law is on hold amid legal challenges.

    Also, DeSantis has said that he doesn’t want women prosecuted, only the doctors. 

    The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details. We rate it Half True.

    RELATED: Ron DeSantis’ False claim that some states allow ‘post-birth’ abortions. None do. 

    RELATED: All abortion bans include exceptions for a mother’s life. But are they working?

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Six Local Organizations To Donate to for Giving Tuesday

    Six Local Organizations To Donate to for Giving Tuesday

    [ad_1]

    A lot of national and international organizations get a lot of attention for Giving Tuesday. If you have the money to spare, we suggest donating to somewhere local, too.

    The Tuesday after Black Friday is dedicated to donating to nonprofits. We’ve compiled a few local organization to consider donating to in our and your local communities. These are essential groups that need just as much support as the bigger organizations, but have a much smaller budget and microphone to market from.

    FIEL Houston

    Early FIEL Houston rally with sign in English and Spanish reading "For families and their education."
    (FIEL)

    Founded in 2007 by Houston college students, FIEL is a civil rights organization and advocacy group run by immigrants and the children of immigrants. While still very segregated, the Greater Houston Area is among the most diverse in the U.S. and home to people from all around the world.

    FIEL specializes in free services regarding education (all, but especially college) and immigration resources. Additionally, they organize to meet other community needs, too. This includes things like organizing to get immigration protections (at all levels—local, state, and federal), accountability for victims of police violence, disaster recovery aid, tenants’ rights, and so much more. Donate to FIEL Houston here.

    Alyssa Shotwell.

    White Pony Express

    White Pony Express Logo featuring a horse in a heart.
    (White Pony Express)

    White Pony Express is a different kind of charity organization. It runs on a model called “The Circle of Giving.” They take clothing and food from the community where there is too much and redistribute the resources to people who are in need of it. For example, if a catering business or restaurant has excess food, White Pony delivers the food to people who are experiencing food insecurity. Any food not fit for human consumption is either donated to a local wildlife rehabilitation center or composted for local gardens. It ensures the community’s needs are met while minimizing waste. Donate to White Pony Express here.

    D.R. Medlen.

    Abortion funds

    Abortion access continues to be under attack across the country. Fortunately, there are incredible activists and organizations fighting back. The Midwest Access Coalition helps pregnant people traveling to, from, and within the Midwest to access safe and legal abortion—an unfortunately necessary service as many states in the area have harsh abortion bans and are also trying desperately to ban interstate travel for the purpose of obtaining an abortion.

    The National Network of Abortion Funds also does incredible work in a similar area. The group is a collection of 100 abortion funds nationwide. In my area, that includes the Missouri Abortion Fund (MoAF). Like the Midwest Access Coalition, they don’t offer direct funds to patients. Instead, they work with local clinics, covering portions of the cost of abortion services, including counseling, for those who need it.

    MoAF says that since they began funding procedures in 2016, they’ve contributed more than $1.3 million toward abortion care for over 7,000 Missourians from all over the state.

    Donate to MoAF here and/or the Midwest Access Coalition here. For those in other areas, find your region’s fund in the National Network of Abortion Funds here.

    Vivian Kane.

    Rising Sun Center for Opportunity

    Rising Sun Center for Opportunity logo with a road, hill, and sunrise.
    (Rising Sun)

    All over the country, the trade industries (i.e. electricians, plumbers, carpenters) are experiencing a lack of qualified applicants. Rising Sun Center for Opportunity trains women, at-risk youth, and those with employment challenges to work in these fields. Focusing on job safety, climate-friendly solutions, and liveable wage jobs, Rising Sun has helps change the lives of people all over the San Francisco Bay Area. They work with people to ensure their personal lives are safe and balanced, helping participants attain housing or mental health services so they can be successful on the job. Donate to Rising Sun here.

    D.R. Medlen.

    Pasadena Animal Shelter & Adoption Center

    Tornado damaged Pasadena, Texas animal shelter.
    (City of Pasadena)

    When people think of animal shelters, they go straight to the big city ones and the ASPCA. Those are great, but there are also small ones serving our local communities nationwide. For Giving Tuesday, I recommend donating a few dollars to your local animal shelter.

    If they’re well resourced and you want to donate to another one, I recommend the one in Pasadena, TX. They need extra help because their facilities have been severely limited due to the first-ever destructive tornado in the city’s history ripping through the building. While they’re still providing resources to pet owners in need like shots and pet food, they can’t take in animals at the moment. If you haven’t divested from Amazon yet, you can also send donations directly through their wish list. Donate to Pasadena Animal Shelter here.

    Alyssa Shotwell.

    Harvesters

    Food insecurity is a massive issue facing millions of people in the U.S. and it’s only getting worse. More than one in eight (12.8%) U.S. households experienced food insecurity last year, a sharp increase from 2021 (10.2%), and that number is rising in 2023.

    As a food bank and community food network, Harvesters collects, processes, stores, and distributes food to hundreds of partner agencies, including food pantries, community kitchens, and shelters in Missouri and Kansas. They make sure the food gets where it needs to go to help as many people as possible, feeding more than a quarter million people every month. The group’s mission is mission is “feeding hungry people today and working to end hunger tomorrow.”

    By the way, during her Eras tour, Taylor Swift quietly made hefty donations to groups connected to national org Feeding America, including an undisclosed but “generous” donation to Harvesters during her stop in Kansas City. (And that was before she fell for our tight end.) Be like Taylor: Donate your food, money, or time to Harvesters or your local food bank.

    Donate to Harvester here or find your local Feeding America member organization here.

    Vivian Kane.

    Project Row Houses

    As a museum-head, I had to get one in and one of the best museum-like places doing fantastic work in serving their community is Project Row Houses. Founded by seven artists in 1993, PRH is a community nonprofit serving the residents of one of Houston two major historical Black neighborhoods, Third Ward.

    The row houses served as installation/studio spaces for underrepresented artists outside of traditional practice and gave an economically disadvantaged neighborhood access to engaging art without needing to travel into unwelcoming spaces. The main pillars of the organization are community enrichment, neighborhood development, and art.

    In addition to interesting art installations in the row houses, the organization offers free business-oriented sessions to residents, distributes food aid, has a free housing program for young mothers in their final stretch of college, and works with the local food co-op. Probably most importantly, PRH has worked to slow and reverse gentrification to give residents the tools to stay and not get pushed out. Donate to Project Row Houses here.

    Alyssa Shotwell.

    Honorable mentions

    With Mississippi still in a water crisis and Palestinians still under brutal occupation, please see those respective lists and consider donating there, too.

    (featured image: Giving Tuesday/Anete Lusina via Pexels)

    Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

    [ad_2]

    Alyssa Shotwell

    Source link