ReportWire

Tag: Abortion

  • Texans Could Soon Be Able to Sue Abortion Pill Providers

    [ad_1]

    Private citizens may soon be able to sue people who send abortion pills to patients in Texas, under a recently passed bill that furthers the state’s effort to crack down on abortion.

    HB 7 passed both chambers of the Republican-controlled state legislature in recent days, and the bill now heads to the desk of Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, who has publicly expressed anti-abortion views and is widely expected to sign it into law. If he does, the law would go into effect in December, and would be the first of its kind in the country.

    “Texas is a first mover here,” says Elizabeth Sepper, a professor at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law. “I think this is yet another tool that probably lots of states will take up and think about in 2026.”

    Texas has one of the strictest abortion restrictions in the country: The state has banned abortion in almost all cases, and already allows private citizens to sue people, including providers, who help patients access an abortion after about six weeks of pregnancy. But HB 7 widens the scope of potential lawsuits even further by allowing private citizens to sue abortion pill manufacturers, providers, and others who send the medication to Texas for at least $100,000 in damages. Pregnant people receiving the medication to use themselves wouldn’t be held liable.

    The $100,000 in damages could go in full to the pregnant person, the person who impregnated them, or certain close relatives. If someone else files such a lawsuit, they could receive $10,000, and the remaining sum would go to charity. 

    The awards, Sepper says, are “enormous.” “It creates, I think, a real possibility of essentially harassing lawsuits, fishing expeditions against folks,” she adds.

    Anti-abortion activists have argued that the bill would protect women and fetuses. John Seago, the president of the anti-abortion group Texas Right to Life, applauds the bill’s passage, calling it “a phenomenal victory for the pro-life movement here in Texas.” 

    “It is the most deliberate and aggressive response to the radical trends we’ve seen on the pro-abortion side in the last three years that are mailing abortion pills into Texas and attempting to hide behind a new legal invention called shield laws,” he says, adding that HB 7 would help enforce existing Texas policies.

    But abortion rights advocates and state Democrats have condemned the bill, likening it to a “bounty hunter law” that gives anyone the ability to tattle on people who help facilitate access to abortion pills. They have argued that the bill is an attempt to spark fear in out-of-state providers who are protected by abortion shield laws in their own states when sending the medication to patients in states with abortion restrictions.

    Molly Duane, senior staff attorney at the Center for Reproductive Rights, calls HB 7 a “fear-mongering” piece of legislation. “They’re trying to scare Texans from seeking medication abortion,” Duane says. “But Texans aren’t scared.”

    Medication abortion is the most common method of abortion in the country. And in the three years since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, clearing the way for states to enact their own bans on abortion, advocates have said that abortion pills prescribed via telehealth have been a “lifeline” for many people living in states with restrictions.

    “The extremist anti-abortion advocates who are behind the overturning of Roe, as well as this legislation, will stop at nothing to prevent every single abortion that’s happening in the country, and this is the next step in their long-term battle towards that goal,” Duane says. “But what we know is that people have always had abortions; they will always have abortion. People need abortions to save their lives. They need them to protect their families. They need them to protect their livelihood.”

    Shield laws, versions of which have been enacted in 18 states and Washington, D.C., are intended to protect doctors providing medication or in-clinic abortions from their home state. The laws have led to clashes between states that have protected abortion and those that have banned it. Texas, for instance, filed a civil suit against New York Dr. Margaret Daley Carpenter for allegedly prescribing, via telemedicine, abortion pills to a Texas resident. Carpenter is also facing felony charges in Louisiana for allegedly prescribing abortion pills via telemedicine to a resident there. But New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has refused to extradite Carpenter, citing the state’s shield law.

    Many states that have banned or restricted abortion have struggled to push back on shield laws and abortion pills, and Sepper says HB 7 is the latest iteration of the effort to do so. Whether other states follow Texas’ example and pass similar bills will depend, she thinks, on how effective HB 7 will be in reducing the use of abortion pills in the state, if Abbott signs the bill as expected.

    If the bill is signed into law, Sepper expects that it will spark legal battles between states.

    “HB 7 has a number of targets,” Sepper says. “One of those targets are people within the state of Texas to create a climate of fear about aiding anyone in accessing medication abortion. Another target are manufacturers of medication abortion. And then both health care providers who are out of state, who are using telehealth to distribute medication abortion in Texas, and also, frankly, the states they live in.”

    “In a sense, HB 7 targets not just providers in other states, but in a fairly real sense, the more abortion friendly states that have laws that allow for abortion to be distributed pretty freely,” she says.

    [ad_2]

    Chantelle Lee

    Source link

  • Texas lawmakers pass bill that curbs mailing of abortion pills into the state

    [ad_1]




































    Texas bill targets abortion pill shipments



    New Texas bill would allow lawsuits over shipping abortion pills

    04:11

    The Texas state Senate passed a bill Wednesday that would allow private citizens to sue physicians and distributors who mail abortion pills into the state. The measure now goes to Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who is expected to sign it into law.

    The legislation, which was approved with an 18-9 vote, also prohibits the manufacturing of abortion drugs in Texas.

    It would be the first law of its kind in the country and is part of the ongoing effort by abortion foes to fight the broad use of the pills, which women turn to for the majority of abortions in the U.S.  

    The measure includes manufacturers, digital networks and delivery companies among those who could be sued.

    Winning plaintiffs would receive as much as $100,000 in damages. 

    Hospitals and pregnant women would not be subject to any suits under the legislation.

    Existing Texas law lets citizens sue providers or anyone who helps someone obtain an abortion. But it doesn’t specifically target providers from outside Texas who send the pills — a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol — by mail.

    Texas has a strict abortion ban in place that has narrow exceptions related to the life and health of the mother. The new legislation allows the provision and use of abortion drugs for medical emergencies such as ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages.

    A report released by the Society of Family Planning in May 2024 found that about 8,000 women a month were obtaining abortion medications through the mail in 14 states where the procedure is restricted.

    Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton previously sued a New York doctor who provided abortion drugs to a Lone Star State resident, but shield laws in states with more permissive abortion laws protect parties prescribing abortion pills — making for messy legal battles.

    The new Texas bill is sure to spark a new round of legal battles over whether laws from one state can be enforced in other states.  

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Court dismisses federal lawsuit challenging Minnesota’s abortion laws

    [ad_1]




































    Vice President Vance to visit Minneapolis after mass shooting, and more headlines



    Vice President Vance to visit Minneapolis after mass shooting, and more headlines

    05:46

    A federal court has dismissed a lawsuit that sought to nullify Minnesota’s laws protecting access to abortion, saying the suit lacked standing.

    Court documents show the suit was dismissed late last month. It was originally filed in November of last year by the Women’s Life Care Center, National Institute of Family and Life Advocates and several women who have had abortions.

    The suit argued that the state’s abortion laws terminate parental rights without due process. Women are not being informed about their rights when it comes to the procedure, the lawsuit alleged, resulting in thousands of “involuntary” abortions a year.

    According to the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office, the court said the plaintiffs did not identify which specific laws they were challenging, despite the court repeatedly asking. The court ultimately dismissed the suit because “the crisis pregnancy centers and their owners have suffered no concrete injury as a result of Minnesota’s choice not to impose the stringent abortion regulations the centers prefer.”

    Attorney General Keith Ellison was among the defendants named in the suit, along with Gov. Tim Walz, local Planned Parenthood chapters and others.

    Abortion access is protected by a 1995 Minnesota Supreme Court decision and a state law guaranteeing a “fundamental right” to the procedure.  

    “This latest attack on abortion access in Minnesota is a reminder that anti-choice interest groups are constantly seeking new ways to ban abortion or make reproductive healthcare services harder to obtain,” Ellison said after the suit’s dismissal. “I am pleased to have defeated this latest attack on abortion in Minnesota, and I will do everything in my power to defend Minnesotans’ right to reproductive healthcare.”

    [ad_2]

    WCCO Staff

    Source link

  • Do State Referendums on Abortion Work?

    [ad_1]

    On Election Day last November, supporters of reproductive rights in Missouri were quietly hopeful. For more than two years, abortion had been all but illegal in the state, owing to a trigger law that went into effect minutes after the Supreme Court issued its Dobbs v. Jackson decision, overturning Roe v. Wade. Only in the case of a medical emergency could a woman get an abortion of a viable fetus, and anyone who provided an abortion under other circumstances would be guilty of a felony. But for months opponents of the law had been campaigning to pass Amendment 3, which would enshrine in the state constitution one’s right “to make decisions about reproductive health care” without government interference. They drew inspiration from neighboring Kansas, which, despite its G.O.P. leanings, had voted by eighteen points to preserve abortion rights, and from a half-dozen other states, including Kentucky and Ohio, which had followed suit.

    Then again, Missouri was one of the most conservative states to put abortion rights to an electoral test since Dobbs. The last time a Democratic Presidential candidate had won Missouri was in 1996, and, this time, Donald Trump was certain to defeat Kamala Harris and lead a Republican sweep of statewide offices. Josh Hawley, the state’s senior U.S. senator, was insisting, against all evidence, that Amendment 3 wasn’t about abortion but, rather, about providing gender-affirming care to minors. He falsely called it “an effort to come into our schools, behind your backs, without your knowledge, to tell our kids that there’s something wrong with them and to give them drugs that will sterilize them for life.”

    Deborah Haller, a retired nurse, who spent nine years running the public-health department in rural Johnson County, about an hour east of Kansas City, knew that thousands of women were crossing the border into Illinois and Kansas to end their pregnancies, and that many others were securing abortion pills through telemedicine. Missouri’s restrictions were “unconscionable,” Haller told me. On Election Night, she was thrilled when 51.6 per cent of the state’s voters said yes to Amendment 3, but she soon said to her husband, “I wonder how long it’ll be before they knock it down.” Relating their conversation to me, she said, “It didn’t take long.”

    Less than twenty-four hours after the polls closed, Missouri’s two Planned Parenthood clinics filed suit, asking a court to honor the result and lift medically unnecessary abortion regulations that were on the books in the state, including a seventy-two-hour waiting period, a ban on providing abortion medication through telemedicine appointments, mandatory pelvic exams, and a requirement that clinics be licensed as ambulatory surgical centers. The limitations, in effect since 2018, had left Missouri with just one abortion clinic in the years before Dobbs. Sure enough, attorneys for the Republican-led state government objected, saying that the regulations must be enforced to protect patients.

    It was not until February that a Kansas City judge temporarily struck most state regulations targeted at abortion providers, even as she allowed several others to remain, such as the condition that clinics fulfill the standards for ambulatory surgical centers. Three Planned Parenthood clinics began administering abortion care, but the government appealed, and the state Supreme Court halted abortions in May. The case has gone back and forth, with the judge ruling anew in July that surgical abortions can take place, for now at least, and the state, again, filing an appeal. The office of Missouri’s secretary of state has issued a rule that effectively blocks clinics from providing medication abortions, which account for nearly two-thirds of abortions nationwide. Upping the pressure, the state’s attorney general, Andrew Bailey, sued Planned Parenthood on July 23rd, calling the organization a “death factory.” (He has since been named the co-deputy director of the F.B.I.) Most troubling to abortion-rights proponents: Republicans in the Missouri legislature decided to place a new constitutional amendment on next year’s ballot which would severely restrict abortion all over again. In passing the measure, Republican legislators said that voters must not have understood what was in Amendment 3, or it surely would have been defeated.

    Missouri is not the only state where anti-abortion activists have countered post-Dobbs gains on abortion rights. In Ohio, despite a 2023 referendum that prohibits the state from “burdening, prohibiting, penalizing, and interfering with access to abortion” before viability, challenges to abortion rights are working their way through the courts. Even states with significant abortion bans are witnessing intensifying attempts to make reproductive care more challenging to obtain. Texas and Louisiana, for example, are targeting a New York doctor for allegedly violating state laws when she prescribed abortion pills to patients in their states. Louisiana passed a law last year that classifies mifepristone and misoprostol as controlled substances, potentially delaying lifesaving treatment for pregnant women and making it more difficult for them to manage miscarriages. (The law is being challenged in court; legislators in states such as Missouri have introduced similar legislation.) Candace Gibson, the director of state policy at the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute, called the prospect of such legislation “Terrifying.” She added, “Unfortunately, what type of care you can access really depends on where you live.”

    When I went to see Selina Sandoval, an ob-gyn at the Kansas City Planned Parenthood, the clinic was offering abortions for just the second time since the July ruling. Sandoval explained that, amid the shifting landscape, she is updated promptly by the organization’s attorney when new information comes in. “Even as someone who’s doing this care every day, it is so hard to follow what’s going on,” she told me between appointments. (She also sees patients across the state line in Kansas.)

    The on-again, off-again access to abortions in Missouri has made it difficult for Planned Parenthood clinics to prepare for the periods when abortion has been allowed. They can’t always train and assign staff in an instant, or easily schedule doctors or spread the word that they’re open for business. The uncertainty is “really disruptive to care, which obviously is the goal,” Sandoval said. Emily Wales, the president and C.E.O. of Planned Parenthood Great Plains, which includes central and western Missouri, noted that, for years, clinics have told patients that their care may be interrupted. “We had appointments available,” she said, “but we would tell people as they booked them, ‘We have a license renewal coming up,’ or ‘We have an injunction in place that has a hearing, so let’s go ahead and create a backup plan.’ ”

    Of ten available appointments on the day I visited, only seven were filled in advance. I spoke with one patient, a twenty-eight-year-old medical assistant and mother of four young children. She had assumed that she would have to travel for treatment, as a friend had, and had been startled to discover that she could get an appointment in Kansas City. If she’d had to travel for an abortion, “it would have caused chaos in my life,” she told me. “It would have been a struggle to have to take off work, and then, on top, it’s just already overwhelming.”

    Angela Huntington spends her workdays, and many of her off-hours, creating what she calls a “soft landing” for abortion patients from Missouri and beyond. Based in Columbia, two hours east of Kansas City, Huntington is part of a network of patient “navigators” who buy plane tickets, send rideshare gift cards, reimburse hotel and child-care costs, and arrange payments for abortions that patients otherwise could not afford. In 2024, a hundred and fifty-five thousand people crossed state lines for abortions. “There’s so much meaning to what I do.” Huntington told me. “I don’t know if I could do anything else.” On the day we met, she was working with an unhoused woman who lived thirty-five miles from the nearest airport. The woman had never flown, and she was stopped by airport security because she did not have a Real I.D. or a home address that matched her proof of identification. “It’s a mess,” Huntington said.

    One woman’s effort to get an abortion spanned five states. A nurse and mother of five girls in a small town in southern Missouri, she was delighted when she found out, earlier this year, that she was pregnant with a boy. Testing, however, soon revealed trisomy 18, a genetic abnormality that is usually fatal, often before birth. Few infants born with the condition live more than a year, and their short lives are marred by feeding and breathing difficulties and other forms of distress. The woman learned that her unborn son—whom she and her husband had named Mychael—had a particularly severe case. “We went to all the appointments. We did all the ultrasounds,” she told me. “Beyond a miracle happening, there was no way we were delivering a healthy child free of pain.”

    [ad_2]

    Peter Slevin

    Source link

  • Illinois man accused of drugging girlfriend with abortion pills to cause miscarriage

    [ad_1]

    NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

    An Illinois man was arrested after he allegedly drugged his pregnant girlfriend with abortion-inducing pills, causing her to have a miscarriage, according to police.

    Emerson Evans, 31, was charged with two counts of intentional homicide of an unborn child, Bloomington police said in a news release.

    Officers were called to a home in Bloomington on Friday at around 7 p.m., when they found a pregnant woman suffering a medical emergency.

    During the probe, investigators determined that Evans administered abortion pills without the woman’s consent to cause her to miscarry, according to police. While abortion is legal in Illinois, intentional homicide of an unborn child carries a minimum sentence of 20 years in prison for each count.

    MORE THAN 20 GOP ATTORNEYS GENERAL CALL ON RFK JR, FDA TO REINSTATE SAFEGUARDS FOR ABORTION DRUGS

    Emerson Evans, 31, was charged with two counts of intentional homicide of an unborn child. (Bloomington Police Department)

    After unknowingly taking the drugs, the woman began experiencing medical complications and lost her unborn child.

    Evans’ girlfriend was seven weeks pregnant when she miscarried, according to IPM Newsroom.

    He allegedly put four Mifepristone pills into his girlfriend’s vagina, according to the report. The pill is meant to be taken orally and the recommended dose is one pill.

    “We are again saddened by the alleged criminal actions which resulted in harm to others,” Police Chief Jamal Simington said in a statement. “It is my hope the mother involved in the matter fully recovers and has the resources and support of this strong community in the future. The officers and detectives worked diligently and honorably through this very tough investigation.”

    DOJ WORKER FACES CAPITAL MURDER CHARGE FOR ALLEGEDLY SLIPPING ABORTION DRUG INTO PREGNANT GIRLFRIEND’S DRINK

    Mifepristone

    Evans allegedly administered abortion pills without his girlfriend’s consent to cause her to miscarry. (Shuran Huang for The Washington Post via Getty Images)

    The incident remains under investigation.

    During a court hearing, Judge Amy McFarland said Evans allegedly told police he “made the decision” for his girlfriend, according to IPM Newsroom.

    “Frankly, the number of pills demonstrates a lack of knowledge or consent,” Judge Amy McFarland said at the hearing.

    Evans wanted to “effectuate his beliefs of what should occur in the absence of consent. That involved taking a life,” McFarland told the court.

    A woman holds the first of two combination pills, mifepristone, which will induce an abortion

    Evans’ girlfriend was seven weeks pregnant when she miscarried. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel, File)

    CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

    Evans is scheduled to be arraigned on Sept. 12.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Abortion Measure Loses In Florida After Getting 1 Million More Votes Than Ron DeSantis

    [ad_1]

    Republicans showed what the undercutting of democracy looks like in Florida after a measure to make abortion a constitutional right in Florida despite getting 1 million more votes than Ron DeSantis.

    Adam Smith posted:

    The amendment lost because the gerrymandered Florida legislature put a 60% threshold on passage. The measure received 57% support and passed overwhelmingly, but it means nothing, because DeSantis has tied his legacy and political future to banning abortion.

    What happened in Florida was example of what happens when Republicans gut democracy and send the message that the will of the people does not matter.

    DeSantis wants to use Florida as an example of what Republican governance for the entire country, and what that governance looks like individual rights will get trampled and if it looks like the will of the people will triumph, the government will rig the game against fundamental rights.

    [ad_2]

    Jason Easley

    Source link

  • In Ten States, Millions of Americans Are Directly Voting On Abortion Access

    In Ten States, Millions of Americans Are Directly Voting On Abortion Access

    [ad_1]

    Nebraska prohibits abortion at 12 weeks, with stated exceptions for rape, incest, or “to avert her death or to avert serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function.”

    Nevada

    Nevada’s Question 6, titled the Right to Abortion Initiative, would establish a state constitutional right to an abortion, while allowing the government to regulate after the point of “fetal viability,” around 24 weeks. The initiative includes exceptions that “protect the life or health of the pregnant patient.”

    In Nevada, abortion is currently legal up until this point. The ballot initiative would further secure these protections.

    New York

    In New York, Proposal 1, or the Equal Protection of Law Amendment, would add a clause into the state’s Bill of Rights, ensuring “against unequal treatment based on ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, and sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity and pregnancy.”

    The initiative would also add protections “against unequal treatment based on reproductive healthcare and autonomy.”

    In the Empire State, abortion is legal up to and including 24 weeks. After that point, there are exceptions for fetal viability or to protect the pregnant person’s life or health. Providers cannot be criminally prosecuted for performing abortions outside of this window, and minors do not need their parents’ permission to get birth control, abortion, prenatal care, or access to other reproductive healthcare.

    Across what is considered a deep-blue state, the ballot initiative has been turned into a referendum on parental rights by anti-trans activists who seek to thwart the amendment.

    As CBS reports, “The Coalition to Protect Kids is making an effort to dissuade people from voting yes on Prop 1, saying it opens the door for men to use women’s bathrooms, transgender adolescents to compete on sports teams that align with their gender identities, and minors to seek abortions without parental consent.”

    South Dakota

    South Dakota bans abortion in practically all cases, with no exceptions for rape or incest. (There is a “life of the mother” exception.) Those who perform abortions are “guilty of a Class 6 felony,” per state law.

    The state’s Constitutional Amendment G, or the Right to Abortion Initiative, “establishes a constitutional right to an abortion and provides a legal framework for the regulation of abortion,” per the ballot language.

    [ad_2]

    Katie Herchenroeder

    Source link

  • Abortion group asks judge to toss out lawsuit

    Abortion group asks judge to toss out lawsuit

    [ad_1]

    BOSTON — An abortion rights group is asking a federal judge to toss out a lawsuit against them and Gov. Maura Healey by anti-abortion groups in response to a state-funded campaign targeting pregnancy ‘crisis’ center operators.

    In a motion to dismiss filed in U.S. District Court in Boston on Tuesday, lawyers for the Reproductive Equity Now Foundation argue that the plaintiffs “lack standing” to file the lawsuit and blasted the legal challenge as an attempt to “silence” their advocacy work.

    “Contrary to the allegations in the complaint, this case is not about any wrongful deprivation of the First Amendment or other constitutional rights …” lawyers for the foundation wrote in a court filing. “Instead, it is a blatant attempt to enlist this court’s assistance in its effort to silence Reproductive Equity Now Foundation and its president Rebecca Hart Holder, by enjoining them from exercising their constitutional rights.”

    The lawsuit, filed in August by the Massachusetts Liberty Legal Center on behalf of Your Options Medical Center and others, alleges that the state and Equity Now violated their constitutional rights with a “campaign of harassment, suppression, and threats” against the Revere-based facility and other pregnancy centers.

    At issue is a taxpayer-funded education campaign by the state Department of Health warning the public to avoid pregnancy crisis centers, which have emerged as the latest battleground in abortion access following the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling overturning federal protections.

    The $1 million campaign, which began earlier this year, has blanketed social media platforms, billboards and radio, with ads emblazoned on MBTA buses, trains and depots.

    The plaintiffs allege the campaign has forced them “to operate in a culture of fear and harassment” and that they continue to face “unprecedented investigations, including unnecessary subpoenas,” despite a prior state investigation clearing the operators of any wrongdoing.

    But lawyers for Holder and Equity Now argue in court filings that the public education campaign hasn’t deprived the pregnancy centers of their free speech rights or interfered with their operations.

    “To be clear, the public has not been prevented from seeking out and receiving YOM’s services, and YOM has not been prevented from expressing its viewpoints or fulfilling its mission consistent with those viewpoints,” they wrote.

    The plaintiffs “utterly failed to allege facts that plausibly demonstrate this is one of those rare instances in which the conduct of private parties constitutes state action,” they added.

    Hart-Holder calls the lawsuit “an attempt to silence our organization and prevent us from exercising our First Amendment protected right to free speech.”

    “We will not be intimidated by this lawsuit, and we will always fight for New England patients and their ability to access the reproductive health care that is right for them,” she said in a statement.

    Pregnancy crisis centers have emerged as the latest battleground in abortion access following the Supreme Court’s ruling overturning federal protections.

    The centers, which advertise free services and counseling for women struggling with unplanned pregnancies, have proliferated in the wake of the high court’s decision overturning the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling.

    But Healey and women’s reproductive rights groups claim the facilities are funded by anti-abortion groups with the intention of blocking women from getting abortions.

    In June, the state Department of Public Health partnered with the advocacy groups on a new campaign to educate the public about the “dangers and potential harm” of anti-abortion centers that advocates say are providing misleading information to women.

    The $1 million taxpayer-funded public campaign features ads on social media platforms, billboards, radio and transit warning women about the pregnancy crisis centers.

    Some communities have moved to limit or ban the centers amid complaints that they are using deceptive advertising and providing misinformation.

    But anti-abortion groups say the centers are providing options to women other than abortions and being unfairly targeted by a “smear campaign” by proponents of the procedure.

    The Pregnancy Care Alliance of Massachusetts said the network of pregnancy care centers in the state “provides millions of dollars in no-cost support and care for thousands of women annually who face planned and unplanned pregnancies.”

    The alliance has accused Healey and other state leaders of “furthering their extreme abortion agenda by using a taxpayer-funded campaign to discredit our centers.”

    “Our pregnancy resource centers are paying close attention to the case and look forward to learning the outcome, since a decision will directly impact our service to women and communities across the state,” the alliance said in a statement.

    The conservative American Center for Law and Justice, which has helped former President Donald Trump fight his legal battles, is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit. It argues that the campaign targeting pregnancy centers is part of a strategy to “silence the anti-abortion movement.”

    Healey, who is being represented by the Attorney General’s office, hasn’t formally responded to the lawsuit’s claims but was granted an extension this week to file her response until Dec. 13, according to federal court filings.

    Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com.

    [ad_2]

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Misleading claims fly in competitive Senate campaigns

    Misleading claims fly in competitive Senate campaigns

    [ad_1]

    Candidates have been waging high-stakes, high-dollar campaigns in Senate races across the country this year, as Senate control rests on a few swing states.

    Democrats, who now control the Senate with 51 seats, are playing defense, looking to protect incumbents in competitive races and stop Republicans from gaining open seats in Michigan and Arizona. 

    Republicans need a net gain of two seats to gain control of the chamber, or one if the incoming vice president is a Republican.

    Claims about Medicare and Social Security, abortion rights and voting rights have been common themes PolitiFact has checked as we’ve identified misleading campaign claims and misinformation.

    We rounded up the most common themes we’ve checked from more than 50 claims in races in Arizona, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

    Sign up for PolitiFact texts

    Theme No. 1: Both parties have dire, misleading warnings for Social Security and Medicare.

    Millions of retired Americans rely on Social Security payments and Medicare health coverage. Older Americans reliably have a higher voting turnout than other age groups, so concerns about these programs often play highly in national campaigns. 

    In campaign attacks, Democratic candidates have claimed their opponents want to cut Social Security and Medicare or raise the retirement age for benefits in Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin

    In Michigan, the United Auto Workers labor union ran an ad saying Republican candidate Mike Rogers “wants to cut Medicare and Social Security.” In Nevada, incumbent Sen. Jackie Rosen said Republican opponent Sam Brown “publicly supported forcing massive cuts to Social Security and Medicare.”

    Former U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, the Republican candidate vying for the open Michigan U.S. Senate seat, answers questions from the Oct. 14, 2024, media after he debated U.S. Rep. Elissa Slotkin, D-Holly. (AP)

    Republicans have in the past floated plans to raise the age for retirement benefits under Medicare or Social Security or change the benefit structures in some way. But these Republicans generally aren’t calling to cut the programs now; most candidates have said this year they will not support cuts to Social Security or Medicare benefits. 

    Republicans in Montana and Arizona have also wrongly accused their Democratic opponents of planning to cut Social Security, pointing to statements from more than a decade ago that were taken out of context. 

    The Montana claim pointed to 2011 statements from Democratic incumbent Sen. Jon Tester, who said he supported a commission that recommended cutting federal spending; some moves would have trimmed Social Security payments. Tester said he did not support all of the commission’s recommendations and opposed the Social Security proposals. In Arizona Republican candidate Kari Lake’s case, the evidence for her claim had nothing to do with U.S. Rep. Ruben Gallego, her Democratic opponent.

    Social Security and Medicare both face funding shortfalls; major trust funds behind both programs are expected to be depleted in a little more than a decade, according to recent reports. However, strategies to address this funding have proven politically dangerous for both parties.

    Theme No. 2: Democrats exaggerate Republicans’ stances on abortion bans, exceptions

    With about 63% of Americans believing abortion should be legal in all or most cases, Democrats are leaning on popular support for abortion rights in their campaign messages. 

    Democrats have argued that Republicans plan to ban abortion nationally if they take power, often saying their opponents oppose rape and incest exceptions to abortion restrictions.

    The attacks have come from Democratic candidates in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Montana, Nevada and Florida

    In Nevada, Rosen said Brown said “abortion should be banned without any exceptions for rape or incest.” In Pennsylvania, a Democratic political action committee said Republican Dave McCormick is “fully against abortion.” 

    Sen. Jacky Rosen, D-Nev., takes questions from reporters after a debate with Republican senatorial candidate Sam Brown, Thursday, Oct. 17, 2024, in Las Vegas. (AP)

    These attacks often point to a candidate’s long history of supporting abortion restrictions, including some cases in which candidates hadn’t supported rape and incest exceptions. But during this election, Republicans are mostly not arguing for a national abortion ban; all have said they support exceptions for rape, incest and to protect the pregnant woman’s life. 

    In Michigan and Pennsylvania, Republicans Rogers and McCormick have both said they would vote no on a national abortion ban. They’ve deferred to their states’ laws, which both allow abortions until around 24 weeks, the point of fetal viability, with exceptions later if the pregnant woman’s life is at risk. 

    Ohio Republican Bernie Moreno has said he supports national legislation to ban abortion in most cases at 15 weeks, with exceptions after that for rape, incest and to save the pregnant woman’s life. When he ran for the party’s Senate nomination in 2022, Moreno said he did not support any exceptions to abortion bans, but he has since changed that position. 

    Theme No. 3: Republicans exaggerate Democrats’ support for abortion “until the moment of birth.”

    Republicans have tried to paint Democrats as extreme on abortion during this campaign cycle. Candidates have said their opponents support abortion until the moment of birth or they do not support any limits on abortion. 

    Republican Tim Sheehy in Montana said Tester supports “elective abortions up to and including the moment of birth.” In Nevada, Republican Sam Brown said a proposed state constitutional amendment would put “no limit” on abortion access.

    Republican Senate candidate Tim Sheehy speaks to supporters Sept. 4, 2024, in Billings, Mont. (AP)

    Earlier this year, Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson said Senate Democrats voted “to support unlimited abortions up to the moment of birth.” We rated these claims False, and they ignore the limits imposed by the Senate legislation that Democrats support. 

    Senate Democrats voted in May 2022 for the Women’s Health Protection Act, a bill that would have imposed a national right to an abortion until fetal viability mirroring the rights in place under Roe v. Wade. The bill failed to reach the 60-vote threshold to pass in the Senate.

    The bill would have allowed abortions after fetal viability, if the pregnancy risked the pregnant woman’s life or health. 

    The bill does not allow abortion for any reason late in pregnancy and up to the moment of birth, experts said. Instead, it allows for medical judgment by a health care provider in rare instances in which a pregnancy risks the pregnant woman’s health. 

    “This is not abortion on demand until the moment of birth,” Alina Salganicoff, a senior vice president at KFF, a health information nonprofit, and director of the nonprofit’s Women’s Health Policy Program, told us in a previous fact-check. “Even if politicians and anti-abortion activists make this claim, there are no clinicians that provide ‘abortions’ moments before birth.” 

    In Nevada, Brown’s “no limit” argument made the same error, ignoring the amendment’s provision that abortion can be restricted after fetal viability unless a woman’s health or life is at risk. The proposed amendment is worded to provide similar protections as those already in state law, but it enshrines them in the state constitution, making them harder to overturn. Nevada voters will vote on the amendment Nov. 5. 

    Theme No. 4: Republicans misrepresented Democrats’ votes on the SAVE Act.

    In an election rife with claims about immigration and election security, some Republicans have pushed the incorrect claim that Democrats recently voted to allow immigrants in the country illegally to vote in federal elections. 

    The claim gives a misleading picture of a bill that most House Democrats voted against earlier this year. It is illegal under federal law for immigrants in the country illegally to vote, and Democrats in Congress have not recommended or supported measures to change that. 

    In July, the majority House Republicans passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, or SAVE Act, mostly along party lines with Republicans in the majority. The bill would have required people to show proof of citizenship, such as a passport or birth certificate, to register to vote in federal elections. 

    But Republicans, including Lake in Arizona and Rogers in Michigan, have argued their opponents’ votes against that bill was a vote to “let illegals vote in U.S. elections,” as Rogers falsely put it. 

    Democrats’ opposition to the bill was not a vote to open voter registration up to noncitizens, though, because federal and state laws already ban noncitizen voting. Whether the bill passed or failed, that prohibition would not have changed. 

    Democrats said the bill impeded access to voting for eligible citizens who may lack easy access to proof of citizenship. 

    Theme No. 5: Republican claims about gender-affirming care and women’s sports

    Republicans in the race’s final weeks have zeroed in on transgender-focused policies. 

    Republicans in Ohio, Montana and Wisconsin ran ads accusing Democratic candidates of supporting transgender women competing in women’s sports or gender-affirming care for minors. 

    In Ohio, Republicans said Bincumbent Sen. Sherrod Brown voted to “allow transgender biological men to compete in girls’ sports” and “supported allowing puberty blockers and sex-change surgeries for minor children.” 

    Brown voted against an amendment that would have stripped funding from schools and colleges that allowed transgender girls and women to compete in sports matching their gender identities. The amendment did not directly dictate athletic eligibility, which states and governing sports bodies usually decide. 

    U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, speaks at a campaign rally, Saturday, Oct. 5, 2024, in Cincinnati. (AP)

    In another ad, the Senate Leadership Fund, a super PAC working to build a Republican Senate majority, said Brown supported allowing puberty blockers and gender-affirming surgery for minors. Brown has generally supported transgender rights. 

    Although Brown expressed broad support for preventing government restrictions on gender affirming care for minors, he did not specifically address support for puberty blockers and surgery. 

    In Wisconsin, Republican Eric Hovde said his Democratic opponent, incumbent Sen. Tammy Baldwin, gave taxpayer money to a “transgender-affirming clinic … that does it without even telling parents.” 

    The statement referred to a Wisconsin nonprofit that serves runaway and homeless youth. Although Hovde did not specify what he meant by “does it,” the wider conversation touched on puberty blockers and surgeries for transgender youth.

    The nonprofit, Briarpatch Youth Services, offers a support group for LGBTQ+ teens, but it does not provide medical interventions, with or without parents’ consent. Guidelines from American Academy of Pediatrics say parental consent is required for a person younger than 18 to receive puberty blockers, hormones or gender-affirming surgeries. Hovde’s claim is False.

    RELATED: Read our coverage of 2024 tossup Senate races

    RELATED: Republicans use sleight of hand to blame Inflation Reduction Act for boosting prices

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Beyoncé endorses Kamala Harris in joyful speech at Houston rally: ‘I’m here as a mother’

    Beyoncé endorses Kamala Harris in joyful speech at Houston rally: ‘I’m here as a mother’

    [ad_1]

    “I’m not here as a celebrity, I’m not here as a politician. I’m here as a mother,” Beyoncé said at a campaign rally for Kamala Harris.

    “A mother who cares deeply about the world my children and all of our children live in, a world where we have the freedom to control our bodies, a world where we’re not divided,” she said Friday night in Houston.

    “Imagine our daughters growing up seeing what’s possible with no ceilings, no limitations,” she continued. “We must vote, and we need you.”

    At the end, Beyoncé, who was joined onstage by her Destiny’s Child bandmate Kelly Rowland, introduced Harris. “Ladies and gentlemen, please give a big, loud, Texas welcome to the next president of the United States, Vice President Kamala Harris,” she said.

    She did not perform — unlike in 2016, when she performed at a presidential campaign rally for Hilary Clinton in Cleveland.

    Houston is Beyoncé’s hometown, and Harris’ presidential campaign has taken on Beyonce’s 2016 track “Freedom,” a cut from her landmark 2016 album “Lemonade,” as its anthem.

    Harris first used the song in July during her first official public appearance as a presidential candidate at her campaign headquarters in Delaware. That same month, Beyoncé’s mother, Tina Knowles, publicly endorsed Harris for president.

    Beyoncé gave permission to Harris to use the song, a campaign official who was granted anonymity to discuss private campaign operations confirmed to The Associated Press.

    Arriving in the back-half of “Lemonade,” “Freedom” samples two John and Alan Lomax field recordings, which document Jim Crow-era folk spirituals of Southern Black churches and the work songs of Black prisoners from 1959 and 1948, respectively. It also features Pulitzer Prize winner Kendrick Lamar.

    Kinitra D. Brooks, an academic and author of “The Lemonade Reader,” says the song “‘Freedom” is so important because it shows that freedom isn’t free. The freedom to be yourself, the political freedom … it’s the idea that you must fight for freedom, and that it is winnable.”

    The Harris rally in Houston highlighted the perilous medical fallout from the state’s strict abortion ban and putting the blame squarely on Donald Trump.

    Since abortion was restricted in Texas, the state’s infant death rate has increased, more babies have died of birth defects and maternal mortality has risen.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Video: Where Harris and Trump Stand on Abortion

    Video: Where Harris and Trump Stand on Abortion

    [ad_1]

    In the first presidential election since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald J. Trump bring sharply different records on abortion. Maggie Astor, a political reporter for The New York Times, describes where the candidates stand on the issue.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • White House proposes rule to expand contraceptive access

    White House proposes rule to expand contraceptive access

    [ad_1]

    As Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris makes reproductive rights a centerpiece of her campaign, the Biden-Harris administration on Monday proposed a dramatic expansion of contraception coverage.

    The proposed rule would require that insurers cover the cost of over-the-counter birth control and other measures designed to increase access to contraceptives.


    What You Need To Know

    • The Biden-Harris administration on Monday proposed a dramatic expansion of contraception coverage
    • The proposed rule would require that insurers cover the cost of over-the-counter birth control, including condoms and the nonprescription birth control pill Opill
    • About 65 million women are of reproductive age in the United States
    • The move comes more than two years after the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision overturned Roe v. Wade and ended the national right to an abortion


    “Every woman in every state must have reproductive freedom and access to the healthcare they need,” Harris said in a statement released by the White House. 

    Calling it the largest expansion of contraception coverage in more than a decade, she said the “new proposed rule will build on our Administration’s work to protect reproductive freedom by providing millions of women with more options for the affordable contraception they need and deserve.”

    About 65 million women are of reproductive age in the United States, according to the World Health Organization. 

    Provided through the Affordable Care Act, the new rule would apply to condoms, spermicides and the nonprescription birth control pill Opill, as well as emergency contraception to prevent pregnancy if taken shortly after unprotected sex. 

    The ACA currently covers the cost of prescription birth control. The new rule would expand to apply to the over-the-counter version the Food and Drug Administration approved last year. 

    The move comes more than two years after the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision overturned Roe v. Wade and ended the national right to an abortion. Twenty-one states currently ban abortion or make access to the procedure more restrictive than what was allowed under Roe v. Wade. 

    In a concurring opinion to the Dobbs ruling, conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said that the high court should “reconsider” a number of high-profile rulings, including the 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut Supreme Court ruling that guaranteed married couples’ right to contraception. 

    Harris on the campaign trail has warned that Griswold could be at risk under a future Trump administration. 

    At least 13 states and Washington, D.C., currently have regulations that protect a woman’s right to contraception, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

    In 2022, the House of Representatives passed the Right to Contraception Act to codify Americans’ right to contraception, but it failed to pass in the Senate.

    A 2022 poll conducted by FiveThirtyEight found widespread support for contraceptives, with about 90% of Americans saying they support condoms and birth control pills and 80% supporting intrauterine devices, or IUDs. Another 70% said they support emergency contraception including Plan B, and almost 60% said they support medical abortion or abortion pills.

    [ad_2]

    Susan Carpenter

    Source link

  • Sen. Tammy Baldwin, Eric Hovde trade accusations of lying during testy debate

    Sen. Tammy Baldwin, Eric Hovde trade accusations of lying during testy debate

    [ad_1]

    Democratic U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin and Republican challenger Eric Hovde repeatedly accused each other of lying over the course of their closely watched Senate race during an often-testy and confrontational debate Friday.

    The debate was held in Madison and hosted by the Wisconsin Broadcasters Association. In their back-and-forth, each candidate accused the other of playing fast and loose with the truth, both on the campaign trail and during the debate itself.

    “The one thing you’ve perfected in Washington is your ability to lie,” Hovde said during an exchange about Social Security.

    His comment came after Baldwin pointed out that Hovde supports returning the federal budget to 2019 levels, which she said will result in massive cuts to popular programs like Social Security.

    “He supports spending, just not for you,” Baldwin said.

    Baldwin noted that more than a dozen independent fact-checkers found that Hovde made false statements during the campaign.

    Hovde responded by alleging that “Every single one of her ads has been false.” He offered no evidence to back that up.

    Hovde repeatedly called on Baldwin to disclose more information about the investments and business dealings of her partner, Maria Brisbane, ranked by Forbes as one of the nation’s top female wealth advisers. There is no requirement for Baldwin to release that information.

    “They don’t disclose those investments and how much they’re profiting from it,” Hovde said, calling it a conflict of interest for Baldwin. “That’s fundamentally wrong.”

    “Eric Hovde should stay out of my personal life,” Baldwin shot back. “And I think I speak for most Wisconsin women that he should stay out of all of our personal lives.”

    If elected, Hovde would be one of the richest members of the Senate based on his campaign finance report, which showed he has assets worth between about $195 million and more than $564 million. Baldwin listed assets between $601,000 and nearly $1.3 million.

    Baldwin voiced her support for passing a federal law that would make abortion legal nationwide, as it was before the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.

    “Women are dying because of the current situation,” she said. “Harrowing things are happening to women in this state.”

    Hovde previously said he supported the overturning of Roe v. Wade, but now says he would not vote for a federal ban on abortion. Instead, he says, states should decide. That is a change of position from 2012, when Hovde last ran for Senate as someone “totally opposed” to abortion.

    “I’m not for a national abortion ban,” Hovde said during the debate. “I never have been.”

    Former President Donald Trump, who has endorsed Hovde, has suggested that he would support a federal ban.

    Baldwin and her supporters have tried to paint Hovde as more California than Wisconsin because he owns a $7 million estate in the Pacific seaside city of Laguna Beach and owns Sunwest Bank, which operates on the West Coast.

    Hovde was born and raised in Wisconsin.

    “I’m supposedly a jerk from California,” he said before pulling from his pocket a document that he said was a utility bill for his Madison. He challenged Baldwin to produce 10 years of utility bills to prove where she lives.

    Baldwin voiced strong support for the national health care law, while Hovde called for changes.

    “We need to build upon the Affordable Care Act,” Baldwin said.

    Hovde said the law has not slowed health care cost increases, improved access or allowed people to keep their doctors.

    “I’m a believer in results, and if you look at the results, every one of those promises has failed,” he said.

    Hovde questioned the use of the drop boxes, which the Wisconsin Supreme Court banned in 2022 but then allowed again this year after the court became controlled by liberal justices.

    “We have to create confidence in our voting system,” Hovde said. “It is causing too much tension in our country. And let me tell you, it doesn’t help when our state Supreme Court brings back drop boxes, when those were only used for a pandemic. So why are they being brought back?”

    Drop boxes have been used for years in Wisconsin, but they became more prevalent in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic.

    More than 500 boxes were used in 2020, but this year the Wisconsin Elections Commission said it is aware of only 78 in use. There could be more since communities don’t have to report them.

    There was only one passing reference to Trump and not a single mention of Democratic candidate Vice President Kamala Harris during the hourlong debate. Hovde backs Trump and has appeared at his rallies. Baldwin supports Harris and has spoken at her events in the state.

    Democrats must hold onto the Wisconsin seat if they hope to maintain their slim majority in the Senate. Democrats are defending 23 seats, while Republicans have just 11 up for grabs this election.

    Republicans see an opportunity in swing-state Wisconsin, and both sides have poured money into the campaign, making it one of the five most expensive Senate races this year.

    [ad_2]

    CBS Minnesota

    Source link

  • Fact-checking Trump’s Univision town hall with Latino voters

    Fact-checking Trump’s Univision town hall with Latino voters

    [ad_1]

    At a Noticias Univision town hall in South Florida, former President Donald Trump faced undecided Latino voters who questioned him on the cause-and-effect of his immigration agenda, his response to the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riots, and whether he believed the things he’s said about immigrants in Springfield, Ohio.

    Trump often avoided direct answers.

    Jorge Velázquez, a 64-year-old farmer who lives in California, asked Trump: “This tough job is mainly done by undocumented people, if you deport them, who would do the job and what price would we pay for food?”

    Trump replied with false campaign rally talking points, saying that people are coming in illegally, including from jails and mental institutions.

    Trump also avoided talking about his pledge to do mass deportations or to revoke birthright citizenship. He also left out a rally line about immigrants “poisoning the blood of our country.”  

    Signup for Politifact Texts

    When Ramiro González, a 56-year-old Tampa man, told Trump he was disturbed by Trump’s inaction on the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack, his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, and how he lost the support of former advisers, Trump downplayed  Jan. 6 as a “day of love.”

    Here, we fact-checked some of Trump’s statements. (We also fact-checked Vice President Kamala Harris’ Oct. 10 Univision town hall.)

    Trump downplayed Jan. 6, 2021, as a “day of love,” saying “nobody was killed” and that “there were no guns.” Video evidence, court documents and news coverage show this is false. Four people died Jan. 6, 2021, as Trump supporters breached the U.S. Capitol; one woman was fatally shot and three other people died from medical emergencies suffered during the riot. Court files say several defendants brought firearms with them, and some were charged with having firearms on Capitol grounds.

    Trump said he told supporters who walked down the Capitol to act “peacefully and patriotically.” Trump told his supporters at a Jan. 6, 2021, “Save America” rally, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” But in the days leading up to the rights and also at the rally, he told them to “fight.” 

    Legal experts counter Trump’s claim that Biden dropping out of the race and Harris becoming the Democratic presidential candidate was a “coup.” A “coup d’etat” is a French term for overthrowing a government. Biden dropped out of the race July 21 and endorsed Harris, but he remains in power. Experts said that Democrats persuading him to drop out of the race and then using the party rules to replace him on the ticket is not illegal, nor a “coup.”

    Trump falsely said “that’s been in the newspapers and reported” that immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, eat pets. This distorts reality. What’s been reported — repeatedly — is that this claim is wrong. Local officials have said it’s false that immigrants in Springfield are eating cats and dogs. The news coverage has focused largely on debunking the false narrative Trump and his running mate, Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, have pushed. 

    Trump overstates how many immigrants are in Springfield, Ohio. “They added almost 30,000” immigrants, Trump told a town hall audience member. City officials have said 12,000 to 20,000 new migrants arrived in Springfield over the last four years, in a city of just less than 60,000 people. Most of the immigrants are Haitians and are allowed to temporarily live and work in the country legally.

    Audience members ask former President Donald Trump questions Oct. 16, 2024, during a Univision town hall in Doral, Fla. (AP)

    Trump said that “under Biden and Harris, they allowed 13,099 convicted murderers” to come into the U.S. But that misrepresents the data. A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement official said there were 13,099 noncitizens convicted of homicide who are not in immigration detention. That represents people who entered the country in the past 40 years, not exclusively under the Biden-Harris administration. Many people are not in immigration detention because they’re in law enforcement custody serving sentences.

    Trump said, “Democrats want men to play women’s sports.” There is no official count, but estimates show the population of transgender athletes participating in school sports is very small. It’s up to states to decide whether to let transgender athletes participate in school sports. In recent years, 25 states have passed laws governing the eligibility of transgender students who wish to participate in school sports. Those restrictions are often focused on limiting the eligibility of transgender girls to play on girls’ teams. The U.S. Department of Education is working on a proposal that would ban schools from adopting “one-size-fits-all” policies that ban transgender students from participating on teams consistent with their gender identity.

    Trump falsely said that “they want transgender operations, to change a man into a woman, and in some cases a boy into a woman without parental consent.” We rated a similar Trump claim Pants on Fire. Gender-affirming surgery on minors is rare and laws and professional standards require parents and medical providers to be involved in those decisions

    Former President Donald Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, speaks Oct. 16, 2024, during a Noticias Univision town hall in Doral, Fla. (AP)

    Speaking of Roe v. Wade, Trump said “every lawyer, every legal scholar, Democrats, Republicans, conservatives … everybody wanted it out.” This repeat is False. Before the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, numerous legal scholars wrote briefs urging the Supreme Court to uphold it. Some legal scholars who favor abortion rights have criticized Roe’s legal underpinnings, saying that different constitutional arguments, based on equal protection, would have provided a stronger case. But legal experts, including some who held this view, said those scholars would not have advocated for overturning Roe on this basis.

    Trump exaggerated interest rate levels during his presidency and under Biden, saying “interest rates went from 2% to 10%.” The average 30-year fixed mortgage rate reached a low 2.65% shortly before Trump left office, but rates had fallen amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The peak rate under Trump was 4.94% in November 2018. Mortgage rates are higher under Biden because the Federal Reserve has raised interest rates to stem inflation. But they never went as high as 10%. The peak rate under Biden was 7.79% in October 2023. It’s now 6.32%.

    Trump is wrong (again) about presiding over the “greatest economy” in U.S. history. The unemployment rate fell during Trump’s presidency to levels untouched in five decades. But Biden matched or exceeded those levels. Another measure, the annual increases in gross domestic product — the monetary value of all goods and services a country produces — were broadly similar under Trump to what they were during the final six years under President Barack Obama. And GDP growth under Trump was below that of previous presidents. Wages increased under Trump, but they began rising during Obama’s presidency. The wage increases under Trump were modest compared with the 2% a year increase in the 1960s. 

    Trump offered a dubious take on farmers’ prosperity during his presidency. Trump said, “Farmers are doing very badly under this administration. Under my administration, farmers were doing very well.” Agriculture Department statistics paint a different picture. The past two editions of the department’s Census of Agriculture covered 2017 (Trump’s first year in office) and 2022 (Biden’s second). The net income per farm rose by 85% from 2017 to 2022. The share of farms registering in the top category for net income — $50,000 or more per year — rose from 33% in 2017 to 40% in 2022.

    PolitiFact Senior Correspondent Amy Sherman, Staff Writer Maria Ramirez Uribe, Grace Abels and Samantha Putterman, contributed to this report.

    RELATED: Fact-checking Kamala Harris’ Univision town hall with Latino voters.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • As women seek open congressional seats in Maryland, reproductive rights are front and center

    As women seek open congressional seats in Maryland, reproductive rights are front and center

    [ad_1]

    FREDERICK, Md. (AP) — In an election where the future of reproductive rights is on the ballot in Maryland and elsewhere across the country, the state’s all-male congressional delegation stands to gain an influx of women.

    It could happen in Maryland’s 6th Congressional District, where Democrat April McClain Delaney is running against conservative Republican Neil Parrott, a former member of the Maryland House of Delegates. They’re competing to represent a wide swath of rural Maryland and more affluent liberal suburbs of Washington, D.C.

    In a year when voters also could elect the nation’s first female president, women are vying for two other open seats in Maryland’s 10-member congressional delegation. The delegation has been all-male since former Sen. Barbara Mikulski retired in 2016, but the state has a long history of female officeholders from both parties.

    McClain Delaney, a mother of four daughters whose husband previously represented the district, says she wants to protect the reproductive rights of her children and other young people in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision to end the constitutional right to an abortion and leave those decisions to the states. She previously worked in the Biden administration’s Department of Commerce and has focused much of her career on protecting children’s online safety.

    “I can’t believe that my mother, my daughters’ grandmother, had more reproductive freedoms than they currently do,” she said in a recent interview. She said she once experienced an ectopic pregnancy that could have been fatal if restrictive abortion laws had limited her access to life-saving medical care.

    Parrott, meanwhile, has deflected questions about reproductive rights on the campaign trail. He made his anti-abortion stance clear during 12 years in the Maryland State House. But now, he says, it’s “really a non-issue” because he doesn’t believe either political party can get enough congressional votes to regulate abortion nationally — a position similar to that of former President Donald Trump, the GOP presidential nominee.

    That approach also echoes recent efforts by other conservatives and leaders of the anti-abortion movement now struggling to appeal to voters in blue-leaning Maryland. The state’s voters will also consider a constitutional amendment to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution.

    Parrott, 54, has worked to move the conversation to friendlier terrain, emphasizing his commitment to lowering inflation, creating a stronger economy for middle-class families and stopping illegal immigration. He says his opponent — who lives several miles outside the district in an affluent suburb of Washington — is out of touch with the struggles of everyday Americans, including people in the 6th Congressional District.

    U.S. House members are only required to live in the state they represent.

    McClain Delaney has used personal funds to bolster her campaign and received endorsements from big-name Democrats, including former House speaker Nancy Pelosi and U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin.

    She’s also outspent Parrott by a wide margin, according to AdImpact, which tracks campaign spending. Just since the May 14 primaries, Democrats have spent more than $600,000 on advertising in the 6th District race, compared to slightly more than $30,000 spent by Republicans.

    What to know about the 2024 Election

    Those figures are not expected to change much between now and Nov. 5, with McClain-Delaney having a nearly 20-1 advantage in ad spending reserved the rest of the way. Neither candidate has received much support from the national parties or outside groups, a possible indicator that both sides view the seat as safely Democratic.

    Parrot is a longtime resident of Hagerstown, a small city in western Maryland surrounded by farmland. A traffic engineer by trade, he said he can relate to people dealing with high grocery bills and unaffordable housing.

    “I have a history here,” he said. “I’ve served in the community here.”

    But McClain Delaney, 60, argues she’s more ideologically in line with most 6th District voters. She calls herself a “common sense, common ground” candidate. The daughter of an Idaho potato farmer, she says she can get Washington politicians to address the needs of working families.

    McClain Delaney has attacked Parrott’s record in the Maryland House of Delegates, particularly on issues impacting women.

    Parrott, in turn, has accused McClain Delaney of lying and taking things out of context. In an interview last week, Parrott said he supports the right to abortion in cases of rape, incest and when the mother’s life is at risk.

    Tensions between the candidates erupted into a heated exchange during the last few minutes of a recent public forum.

    “Shame on her,” Parrott said, pointing a finger at McClain Delaney, who denied putting out false information as members of the audience chanted and jeered.

    The House seat was vacated by David Trone, who ran for Senate and lost to Angela Alsobrooks in the Democratic primary earlier this year.

    The 6th District hasn’t always favored Democrats. It was represented by Republican Roscoe Bartlett for 20 years before McClain Delaney’s husband, John Delaney, won the seat in 2012 following a redistricting that helped Democrats.

    Seven of Maryland’s eight House members are Democrats, as are the state’s two senators. Three women are vying for open seats this election cycle.

    In Maryland’s deep blue 3rd Congressional District, state Sen. Sarah Elfreth won a crowded Democratic primary. Her main rival was former U.S. Capitol police officer Harry Dunn, who defended the U.S. Capitol against Jan. 6 rioters. In 2018, Elfreth became the youngest woman elected to the state Senate. She’s pledged to prioritize reproductive health and affordable child care.

    Reproductive freedom is also at the forefront of the U.S. Senate race between former Republican Gov. Larry Hogan and Alsobrooks, a Democrat who argues women have too much at stake to risk losing Democrats’ thin Senate majority. She said having more women at the table is a big deal.

    “I believe it makes our policies more complete,” she said in a recent interview. “And so this is a moment that gives us the opportunity to make sure that we are adding women — mothers and daughters and sisters — to the Senate to ensure that the variety of lived experiences are represented in that body.”

    ___

    This story has been corrected to reflect that Maryland’s delegation has 10 members, not nine, and that there are nine Democrats, not eight, in the delegation

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Golden small business owner challenges U.S. Rep. Brittany Pettersen for suburban seat in Congress

    Golden small business owner challenges U.S. Rep. Brittany Pettersen for suburban seat in Congress

    [ad_1]

    Colorado’s 7th Congressional District, centered on suburban Jefferson County, hasn’t had a Republican in the seat since Bob Beauprez left Congress nearly 20 years ago.

    But Sergei Matveyuk, an antiques repairman from Golden and the GOP contender for the seat in the Nov. 5 election, urges voters not to count him out in his battle with incumbent Brittany Pettersen. The first-term Democratic congresswoman is seeking reelection.

    “People are hurting economically,” Matveyuk, 57, told The Denver Post. “They want someone who feels the pain.”

    He’s running in a once-battleground district that has turned decidedly blue in the last decade or so, with Democratic former Rep. Ed Perlmutter winning election eight times running, until his retirement announcement in 2022 ushered in an open race.

    Pettersen, 42, a former state lawmaker from Lakewood, won the 2022 election by 16 percentage points over Republican Army veteran Erik Aadland. The bulk of the district’s electorate calls left-leaning Jefferson and Broomfield counties home, while redder areas in the district — such as Teller, Custer and Fremont counties — simply don’t have the populations to give Matveyuk a sizable boost.

    As of Sept. 30, Pettersen had raised more than $2.2 million this cycle, compared to about $35,000 collected by Matveyuk, according to campaign finance filings. There are two minor party candidates on the ballot this time: Former state lawmaker Ron Tupa is running on the Unity Party of Colorado ticket, while Patrick Bohan is running as the Libertarian candidate.

    Matveyuk, a political neophyte, said that as a small business owner, the historically high inflation of the last two years has hurt those like him who are particularly sensitive to escalating prices. But it’s his personal story that he thinks will resonate with voters in the current political climate, in which border policy has taken center stage. Matveyuk, who is of Polish descent, and his family left the Soviet Bloc in the late 1980s after experiencing life under communist rule and immigrated to the United States.

    “As an immigrant myself, I know how hard it is to start a new life — but it has to be legal,” he said.

    Matveyuk doesn’t echo former President Donald Trump’s calls for mass deportations but says migrants who “are hurting our people and committing crimes need to be deported, for sure.”

    “We need immigration reform — 40 years ago we had a regulated border and now we have a porous border,” he said.

    According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data through August, there have been more than 8.6 million migrant “encounters” at the southern U.S. border since President Joe Biden took office in 2021. That influx has prompted many big city mayors across the country, including Denver Mayor Mike Johnston, to cut city services to pay for migrant housing and plead for help from the federal government.

    Pettersen acknowledged that the U.S. asylum system is “absolutely outdated.” But many of the arriving migrants are filling jobs that businesses in the district, like nursing homes, are desperate to staff, she said.

    Making people wait years before getting work permits is an unworkable policy, Pettersen said.

    “We don’t have the people in the U.S. to meet our economic needs,” she said. “We need legal pathways based on economic need.”

    [ad_2]

    John Aguilar

    Source link

  • Live fact-checking Trump’s town hall on Fox News

    Live fact-checking Trump’s town hall on Fox News

    [ad_1]

    PolitiFact is fact-checking former President Donald Trump’s Fox News town hall, airing today at 11 a.m. ET.  

    The town hall on “The Faulkner Focus” with Harrison Faulkner, was recorded Oct. 15 in Cumming, Georgia, outside Altanta. (Faulkner also co-moderated Trump’s July appearance at the National Association of Black Journalists panel in Chicago.)

    The town hall, as billed, is to focus on women’s issues; Trump has called himself the “father of IVF” and has said abortion should be left to the states. In a press statement previewing the program, Faulkner said, “Women constitute the largest group of registered and active voters in the United States, so it is paramount that female voters understand where the presidential candidates stand on the issues that matter to them most.”

    Here, we fact-check some of his statements.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Former ICE field director seizes on immigration in race against Rep. Jason Crow to represent Aurora

    Former ICE field director seizes on immigration in race against Rep. Jason Crow to represent Aurora

    [ad_1]

    John Fabbricatore enforced federal immigration laws in his position as an ICE field office director until two years ago, and now he hopes to help secure America’s borders as a congressman.

    The Republican candidate in Colorado’s 6th Congressional District is drawing on his career with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement as he runs against U.S. Rep. Jason Crow in the Nov. 5 election. Crow, a Democrat, just finished his third term in Congress as the representative of the district, which includes Aurora, Littleton, Englewood, Greenwood Village and Centennial.

    The odds weigh heavily in Crow’s favor. The nonpartisan Cook Political Report doesn’t consider the fight for the 6th District to be competitive. It’s ranked as solidly Democratic, in part because Crow, 45, won all three of his elections by double-digit percentages and redistricting in 2020 resulted in boundaries more favorable to Democrats.

    That’s a change from 2018 when the district was seen as a battleground and Crow won his first race by unseating then-U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman, now Aurora’s mayor.

    But this time, Fabbricatore, 52, says voters are looking for a candidate who will prioritize the economy and lower taxes — and he contends that he’s the person for the job.

    “They want someone that wants to fight,” Fabbricatore said.

    He and Crow share certain traits. They’re both veterans: Fabbricatore served in the U.S. Air Force, and Crow was an Army Ranger. They’re hunters, each having longstanding experience with firearms. Neither hails from Colorado originally, with Fabbricatore raised in New York City and Crow in Madison, Wisconsin.

    And the candidates, both fathers of two children, reside in Aurora.

    Beyond that, their stances on major issues diverge — including on immigration, which Fabbricatore refers to as his “subject matter expertise.”

    He argues jobs are going to immigrants compensated with lower wages, taking positions that could be filled by Americans for higher pay. Fabbricatore says he supports “legal, vetted” immigration and more stringent enforcement of existing laws.

    “If we actually just enforce those laws, we will be doing much better than we are doing today with immigration,” he said.

    In recent weeks, Fabbricatore has raised the alarm alongside former President Donald Trump and other conservatives about the presence of Venezuelan gangs in Aurora — while Crow has called out exaggerations and criticized Trump for distorting the problems in certain apartment complexes.

    Crow notes that he represents “one of the most diverse districts in the nation,” with nearly 20% of his constituents born outside of the U.S. He wants to use federal grants and other programs to help immigrants and defend them against racist rhetoric.

    He said he backed a bipartisan immigration deal that ran aground earlier this year after failing to earn enough Republican support. It would have boosted the number of border patrol agents, immigration judges and officers that oversee asylum cases, as well as established more legal pathways for migrants and others without documentation.

    Fabbricatore said in a Denver Post candidate questionnaire that he would not have supported the bipartisan bill, instead preferring another bill with a greater focus on border security.

    Gun violence is what motivated Crow to run for office. He backs a ban on assault weapons and supports universal background checks. He’s also working to pass a bill that would apply the same restrictions to out-of-state residents when they purchase long guns and shotguns as they face when buying handguns — requiring that the gun be shipped to a federally licensed seller in their home state, with a background check performed there.

    Gun violence is “just an unacceptable, avoidable, ongoing national tragedy,” Crow said. “We don’t have to live with mass shootings.”

    Fabbricatore says he believes in gun rights and is instead pushing for investments in mental health.

    The candidates differ on abortion. Crow favors abortion rights, saying he aligns with the majority of Coloradans who back legal access to abortion — and he would support a federal law establishing that as a right. Fabbricatore says Congress should leave abortion’s legal status to the states. He opposes abortion, but he says he recognizes a need for exceptions, including in cases of rape.

    “Having been someone who worked in sex trafficking and saw what many women went through, I could never tell a woman that she couldn’t have a medical procedure to end what happened to her,” he said.

    Fabbricatore points to the economy as his No. 1 issue, saying it’s impacted by energy policy and immigration. He sees Colorado’s potential to participate in the energy sector through solar, wind, fracking and coal.

    [ad_2]

    Megan Ulu-Lani Boyanton

    Source link

  • Ted Cruz and Colin Allred meet in the only debate in the Texas Senate race

    Ted Cruz and Colin Allred meet in the only debate in the Texas Senate race

    [ad_1]

    DALLAS (AP) — Republican Sen. Ted Cruz and Democratic Rep. Colin Allred met for their only debate Tuesday night, trading attacks over abortion and immigration in a closely watched race that could help determine which party wins control of the U.S. Senate.

    Nationally, Democrats view Texas as one of their few potential pickup chances in the Senate this year, while Cruz has urged Republicans to take Texas seriously amid signs that the former 2016 presidential contender is in another competitive race to keep his seat.

    From start to finish in the hourlong debate, Cruz sought to link Allred to Vice President Kamala Harris at nearly every opportunity and painted the three-term Dallas congressman as out of step in a state where voters have not elected a Democrat to a statewide office in 30 years.

    Allred, who would become Texas’ first Black senator if elected, hammered Cruz over the state’s abortion ban that is one of the most restrictive in the nation and does not allow exceptions in cases of rape or incest. The issue is central to Allred’s underdog campaign and his supporters include Texas women who had serious pregnancy complications after the state’s ban took effect.

    Pressed on whether he supports Texas’ law, Cruz said the specifics of abortion law have been and should be decided by the Texas Legislature.

    “I don’t serve in the state Legislature. I’m not the governor,” he said.

    Cruz later blasted Allred over his support of transgender rights and immigration polices of President Joe Biden and Harris, accusing him of shifting his views on border security from the positions he took when he was first elected to Congress in 2018.

    “What I always said is that we have to make sure that as we’re talking about border security, that we don’t fall into demonizing,” Allred said.

    Allred accused the two-term U.S. senator of mischaracterizing his record and repeatedly jabbed Cruz for his family vacation to Mexico during a deadly winter storm in 2021 that crippled the state’s power grid.

    The two candidates closed the debate by attacking each other, with Cruz painting an Allred victory as a threat to Republicans’ grip on Texas.

    “Congressman Allred and Kamala Harris are both running on the same radical agenda,” Cruz said.

    Allred, meanwhile, cast himself as a moderate and accused Cruz of engaging in what he described as “anger-tainment, where you just leave people upset and you podcast about it and you write a book about it and you make some money on it, but you’re not actually there when people need you.”

    The last time Cruz was on the ballot in 2018, he only narrowly won reelection over challenger Beto O’Rourke.

    The debate offered Allred, a former NFL linebacker, a chance to boost his name identification to a broad Texas audience. Allred has made protecting abortion rights a centerpiece of his campaign and has been sharply critical of the state’s abortion ban. The issue has been a winning one for Democrats, even in red states like Kentucky and Kansas, ever since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in 2022 to strip away constitutional protections for abortion.

    Cruz, who fast made a name for himself in the Senate as an uncompromising conservative, has refashioned his campaign to focus on his legislative record.

    What to know about the 2024 Election

    Allred has meanwhile sought to flash moderate credentials and has the endorsement of former Republican U.S. Reps. Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney.

    The two candidates alone have raised close to $100 million, according to the most recent reports from the Federal Election Commission. Tens of millions more dollars have been spent by outside groups, making it one of the most expensive races in the country.

    Despite Texas’ reputation as a deep-red state and the Democrats’ 30-year statewide drought, the party has grown increasingly optimistic in recent years that they can win here.

    Since former President Barack Obama lost Texas by more than 15 percentage points in 2012, the margins have steadily declined. Former President Donald Trump won by 9 percentage points in 2016, and four years later, won by less than 6. That was the narrowest victory for a Republican presidential candidate in Texas since 1996.

    “Texas is a red state,” said Mark Jones, a political science professor at Rice University in Houston. “But it’s not a ruby-red state.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Mike Johnson Baselessly Claims Trump’s Medical Records Are “Irrelevant” and Denies National Abortion Ban

    Mike Johnson Baselessly Claims Trump’s Medical Records Are “Irrelevant” and Denies National Abortion Ban

    [ad_1]

    Welker asked again, would Johnson hold a vote on a national abortion ban?

    “We’re nowhere in a universe where that would be possible right now,” Johnson said. “I have to build a cultural consensus,” he continued, “there’s a lot of work to do.”

    Johnson has, infamously, been doing this work for years.

    As Vanity Fair’s Bess Levin has chronicled, when Roe v. Wade was overturned, Johnson called it “a great, joyous occasion.” His goal for his home state of Louisiana, as he’s explained, is to “get the number of abortions to ZERO!!” As a lawyer, he worked to shut down abortion clinics, as a legislator, he cosponsored the “Life at Conception” bill, which would force pregnancy from the point of fertilization and included no exceptions for IVF, and, as a religious leader, he blamed school shootings, in part, on pregnant people having access to abortion care.

    On Sunday, Johnson encouraged anti-abortion organizations to keep working toward a cultural consensus on the issue before adding, “We need to take care of these ladies that are in difficult situations with their pregnancies. That’s what the states are doing, very effectively. Crisis pregnancy centers and others around the country, care pregnancy centers—there’s a lot of great work being done.”

    Crisis pregnancy centers are facilities that act as legitimate reproductive health care clinics for pregnant people but, in practice, aim to dissuade people from accessing certain types of care, like abortion and contraceptive options. After Dobbs, “Tennessee boosted state support for crisis pregnancy centers from $3 million to $20 million; Florida raised it from $4.5 million to $25 million, and Texas went from giving the groups $5 million every two years to giving a whopping $100 million for 2022 and 2023,” according to Jessica Valenti’s new book Abortion.

    Watkins concluded the interview by asking if Johnson, who is the second in line for the presidency, would accept and certify the results of the 2024 election—a task that Trump’s own running mate, JD Vance, has continuously refused to commit to.

    “Of course, I’m going to follow the Constitution, I’m going to follow the law, that’s my job, my duty. I took an oath to do that, and I will fulfill my oath,” Johnson said.

    “Regardless of who wins?” Welker clarified.

    “Of course, yes,” Johnson replied. “If,” he continued, “it’s free and fair.”

    [ad_2]

    Katie Herchenroeder

    Source link