ReportWire

Tag: Abortion

  • 5/1: America Decides

    5/1: America Decides

    5/1: America Decides – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Florida’s six-week abortion ban takes effect; former first lady Michelle Obama surprises students for college signing day.

    Be the first to know

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


    Source link

  • Does Florida’s abortion amendment remove parental consent?

    Does Florida’s abortion amendment remove parental consent?

    Gov. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., warned parents about a state abortion amendment that would expand legal access to abortion and overrule a six-week abortion ban that went into effect May 1.

    In Naples, hours before President Joe Biden spoke in Tampa April 23 about abortion, DeSantis told a crowd that Biden was coming to Florida to support a constitutional amendment “that will eliminate parental consent for minors and that’s written in a way that’s intentionally designed to deceive voters.”

    The governor repeated this warning on April 30, calling it “an amendment that they wanted to go into Florida’s Constitution that will eliminate parental consent for minors.”

    “Why would you take away parental consent?” he asked.

    The picture of how the amendment could affect parental consent is complex. The ballot measure needs 60% approval to take  effect. And if it is approved, the amendment itself says it “does not change the Legislature’s constitutional authority to require notification to a parent or guardian before a minor has an abortion.”

    But DeSantis’ warning is based on a prediction about what could happen to the parental consent law through legal challenges. 

    That’s because the amendment stipulates that “no law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health.” Legal experts say this wording could lead advocates to challenge a 2020 state law that requires written parental consent before a minor undergoes an abortion.

    But the consent law’s elimination isn’t a foregone conclusion — it would likely be decided by the courts. 

    Adding one more wrinkle: Legal experts told us that, until April 1, parental consent requirements had been unconstitutional in Florida for decades. 

    Here’s why DeSantis’ statement needs more explanation. 

    What the amendment says about parental consent, notification

    The summary for Amendment 4 reads in full:

    “No law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider. This amendment does not change the Legislature’s constitutional authority to require notification to a parent or guardian before a minor has an abortion.”

    DeSantis and others argue that the language would eliminate the law requiring minors to get parental consent before an abortion. Minors can also seek a judge’s permission to obtain an abortion without parental involvement.

    But legal experts told PolitiFact the amendment doesn’t spell the immediate end of parental consent for abortions in Florida.

    “It’s possible that a person or group might sue to overturn the (parental consent) law, however, the case would be heard in state court and, ultimately, the Florida Supreme Court would decide the issue,” said Aubrey Jewett, a political science professor at the University of Central Florida. 

    Given the court’s conservative bent, Jewett said, it’s possible that it would uphold Florida’s existing law, even if the constitutional amendment passes. Justices could determine that parents have traditionally had a legal right to have a say in their children’s health care decisions, he said, and therefore still have a say here.

    The amendment also stipulates that it “does not overrule the Legislature’s constitutional authority to require notification to a parent or guardian before a minor has an abortion.” This refers to Article X, Section 22 of the Florida Constitution, which requires parental notification before a minor seeks an abortion.

    Bryan Griffin, a DeSantis spokesperson, told PolitiFact in an email that parental notification is not the same thing as consent. He referenced DeSantis’ April 17 news conference, during which DeSantis said the “notification is after-the-fact. The consent is obviously a condition precedent.” The initiative’s language, however, as well as current Florida law, specifies that parents would be notified before an abortion takes place, not after.

    “Minors do not have the same constitutional rights as adults do, and the Florida Constitution recognizes this in the abortion context in its provision that expressly allows the Legislature to require parental notification,” said Quinn Yeargain, a Widener University assistant law professor and expert on state constitutional law. 

    “While Section 22 only relates to notification, not consent, it still clearly indicates a desire in the Constitution to limit abortion rights for minors,” Yeargain said.

    The state’s 2020 consent law became enforceable only on April 1, when the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the constitutional protection of privacy didn’t apply to abortions.

    A 1989 Florida Supreme Court case had invalidated an earlier parental consent law for minors seeking abortions on the grounds that it violated Florida’s constitutional right to privacy. So, although DeSantis has a point that the initiative could eventually eliminate the consent requirement, Floridians until April had lived without it for more than 30 years.

    “We don’t know if parental consent will later be interpreted to be a delay or a prohibition on abortion under the amendment, but we do know that the parental consent requirement has been deemed unconstitutional since 1989” until now, said Louis Virelli, a Stetson University law professor.

    RELATED: No, a Florida ballot measure wouldn’t ‘mandate abortion up to birth,’ as Gov. Ron DeSantis said 

    Source link

  • GOP-led Arizona Senate to vote on repealing 1864 abortion ban

    GOP-led Arizona Senate to vote on repealing 1864 abortion ban

    Arizona’s Republican-controlled Senate on Wednesday is set to vote on repealing a Civil War-era abortion ban, one week after a similar motion passed the GOP-controlled state House

    After two failed attempts, three Republicans in the state House on joined all the Democrats in successfully voting to repeal the law, sending it to the Senate. 

    The 14 Democrats in the state Senate are hoping to pick up at least two Republicans to send the measure to Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs, who has said she will sign it. If the repeal is signed, a 2022 law that capped abortions at 15 weeks would eventually go into effect. 

    Last month, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the 1864 law banning nearly all abortions could go into effect, superseding a 15-week abortion ban put in place in 2022 by state Republicans. The March 2022 law was signed three months before the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the federal right to an abortion with its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision.

    The state Supreme Court found that the 2022 Arizona ban “is predicated entirely on the existence of a federal constitutional right to an abortion” because the 2022 ban didn’t “independently authorize abortion.” As a result, the court said, there was no provision in either state or federal law that addressed the operation of the 1864 ban, so that ban “is now enforceable,” the court ruled.

    Even if the Senate passes the repeal on Wednesday, it would not go into effect until 90 days after the legislature adjourns. The 1864 law is set to go into effect on June 27. 

    Abortion Arizona
    File: The Arizona Senate building at the state Capitol, April 11, 2024, Phoenix.

    Ross D. Franklin / AP


    Former Republican Gov. Doug Ducey, who signed the 2022 law, was among the critics of the court’s decision, as well as U.S. GOP Senate candidate Kari Lake. Former President Donald Trump said after the ruling, “I’m sure that the governor and everybody else are going to bring it back into reason and that’ll be taken care of, I think very quickly.”

    Democrats, who nationally have been running on restoring abortion rights, have focused on Arizona, a swing state that flipped for President Biden in 2020, as a key battleground. In a speech in Tucson last month, Vice President Kamala Harris tied the 1864 abortion ban — and similar restrictive measures in other states — to Trump, calling him “the architect of this health care crisis.”

    Shawna Mizelle contributed to this report. 

    Source link

  • Former President Trump Says States Should Decide On Prosecuting Women For Abortions, Has No Comment On Abortion Pill – KXL

    Former President Trump Says States Should Decide On Prosecuting Women For Abortions, Has No Comment On Abortion Pill – KXL

    CHICAGO (AP) — Former President Donald Trump says it should be left up to the states whether they want to prosecute women for getting abortions or whether to monitor their pregnancies.

    The presumptive Republican presidential nominee declined to comment on access to the abortion pill mifepristone, which has been embroiled in an intense legal battle.

    The comments, published Tuesday in Time magazine, are consistent with Trump’s recent attempts to seek a more cautious stance on the issue, which has become a vulnerability for Republicans and has driven turnout for Democrats.

    More about:

    Grant McHill

    Source link

  • DeSantis’ False claim about Florida abortion measure

    DeSantis’ False claim about Florida abortion measure

    As Floridians prepare to vote on a November ballot measure that would enshrine abortion access in the state constitution, Florida’s Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis declared his opposition to the effort.

    Hours before, DeSantis claimed the ballot initiative, which President Joe Biden supports, is far more extreme than supporters are letting on. 

    “I hear that Joe Biden is on his way to Florida this afternoon,” DeSantis said during an April 23 news conference ahead of the president’s Tampa speech. “And now he’s coming down to try to support a constitutional amendment that will mandate abortion until the moment of birth.”

    But DeSantis’ statement about the amendment is undermined by the initiative’s language.

    If approved by at least 60% of voters, the measure would restrict prohibitions on abortion before fetal viability — typically considered to be around 24 weeks of pregnancy — or when necessary to protect the pregnant woman’s health. A full-term pregnancy is around 40 weeks.

    In the U.S., less than 1% of abortions are performed after 21 weeks and typically involve an emergency or fatal fetal anomaly. Florida’s upcoming six-week abortion ban, which takes effect May 1, includes an exception for the pregnant woman’s life. If the constitutional amendment passes, Florida’s Legislature can further shape what kind of health exceptions would qualify. 

    What the amendment says on abortion limits

    The summary for Amendment 4, titled, “Amendment to Limit Government Interference with Abortion,” reads:

    “No law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider. This amendment does not change the Legislature’s constitutional authority to require notification to a parent or guardian before a minor has an abortion.”

    Responding to PolitiFact’s questions, Bryan Griffin, a spokesperson for the governor’s office, wrote, “Where does it define who gets to define ‘viability’?” 

    Health care providers place fetal viability between 22 and 25 weeks of pregnancy. Neonatal survival rates in that time range vary and depend on the size and health of the fetus, the pregnant woman’s health and the health care facility.

    Although the amendment doesn’t define viability, Florida Statute 390.011 does. It says viability is “the stage of fetal development when the life of a fetus is sustainable outside the womb through standard medical measures.” The amendment would not change this definition.

    “It is not true that the amendment protects the right to an abortion up until the moment of birth. It only does so when a woman’s health is in danger,” said Louis Virelli, a Stetson University College of Law professor.

    He said the amendment reinstates the restrictions of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that provided federally protected abortion access until a fetus is viable, in Florida. The Supreme Court in 2022 overturned Roe when it ruled in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that states should set laws on abortion access.

    “Viability is a well-known medical term that marks the point at which a fetus is able to survive outside the womb,” Caroline Mala Corbin, a University of Miami law professor, wrote to PolitiFact in an email. “Might the courts interpret ‘protecting the patient’s health’ so broadly as to essentially make abortion available until birth? Of course not.”

    More than 90% of abortions take place in the first trimester, or up until around 13 weeks of pregnancy, according to U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data. Abortions later in pregnancy are rare and often happen because of severe fetal anomalies or health risks to the mother.

    “It’s also misleading because physicians, if anything, have been very reluctant to perform abortions in health emergencies that are clearly justified under state statutes for fear of liability,” said Mary Ziegler, an abortion historian and law professor at University of California, Davis. “The terms are ambiguous, but who’s going to be interpreting that? The Florida Supreme Court and the conservative legislature. To think that they will say this is abortion to birth, that’s not going to happen.”

    Florida’s upcoming six-week abortion ban, which DeSantis signed, allows later abortions when doctors certify that the procedure would avert “serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman other than a psychological condition.” 

    Although this is more restrictive than the amendment’s broader language about protecting the patient’s health, the Legislature would still be able to shape it further.

    Our ruling 

    DeSantis said Florida’s abortion amendment “will mandate abortion until the moment of birth.”

    The amendment does not do this. The measure allows abortion before fetal viability, typically around 24 weeks of pregnancy, or when necessary after that period to protect the health of the pregnant woman. In the U.S., less than 1% of abortions in the U.S. are performed after 21 weeks and typically involve a health emergency or fatal fetal anomaly.

    Existing Florida law defines viability as “the stage of fetal development when the life of a fetus is sustainable outside the womb through standard medical measures.”  

    We rate DeSantis’ statement False.

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

    RELATED: All of our fact-checks about abortions

    Source link

  • Trump says it’s up to states if they want to prosecute women for abortions

    Trump says it’s up to states if they want to prosecute women for abortions

    Former President Donald Trump, the 2024 GOP presumptive presidential nominee, said in an interview with TIME magazine he would defer to individual states if they want to enforce abortion laws by monitoring women’s pregnancies and prosecuting them if they get abortions.


    What You Need To Know

    • Former President Donald Trump told Time magazine he would defer to individual states if they want to enforce abortion laws by monitoring women’s pregnancies and prosecuting them if they get abortions
    • When asked if states “should monitor women’s pregnancies so they can know if they’ve gotten an abortion after the ban,” Trump said. “I think they might do that”
    • He wouldn’t say if he believed the federal government should ban the shipping of abortion drugs across state lines
    • On a House GOP proposal to grant full legal rights to embryos, Trump said “I’m leaving everything up to the states. The states are going to be different. Some will say yes. Some will say no”

    “It’s irrelevant whether I’m comfortable or not. It’s totally irrelevant, because the states are going to make those decisions,” Trump said when asked if he would be comfortable with states criminally charging women for getting abortions. “And by the way, Texas is going to be different than Ohio. And Ohio is going to be different than Michigan.”

    Trump has proudly taken credit for appointing three of the six judges who authored the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, which undid the 50-year precedent of Roe v. Wade and allowed states to implement abortion bans, but has tempered his enthusiasm for the most severe state laws and proposals, arguing they can be political liabilities as he seeks to return to the White House. 

    But in the TIME interview published Tuesday and conducted over the course of two conversations this month, Trump said his personal level of comfort did not matter and he would leave those decisions up to the states if he were elected president again.

    On a proposal by the Republican Study Committee — which includes around 80% of House Republican lawmakers, including Speaker Mike Jorhnson, R-La. — to grant full legal rights to embryos, Trump said “I’m leaving everything up to the states. The states are going to be different. Some will say yes. Some will say no.” He did not say he would veto federal legislation if it reached his desk, arguing again it would be left up to state governments.

    When asked if states “should monitor women’s pregnancies so they can know if they’ve gotten an abortion after the ban,” Trump said. “I think they might do that” before launching into an aside where he falsely claimed “every legal scholar, Democrat, Republican and other” wanted the question of abortion’s legality sent back to statehouses and state courts.

    Trump described his adopted home state of Florida’s six-week ban, which is set to take effect on Wednesday, as “too severe,” but wouldn’t say how he would vote on a state referendum in November that would undo the ban by codifying abortion rights in the state constitution. He also wouldn’t say if he believed the federal government should ban the shipping of abortion drugs across state lines, telling TIME he would have an announcement on his views within two weeks (and then delaying it another week or two as of Saturday). And he refused to entertain a hypothetical national abortion ban, pushed by many Washington Republicans, by arguing his party would “never” have the 60 votes in the Senate required to pass that kind of legislation.

    “It’s all about the states, it’s about state rights. States’ rights. States are going to make their own determination,” Trump insisted. “And you know what? That’s taken tremendous pressure off everybody… it was ill-defined. And to be honest, the Republicans, a lot of Republicans, didn’t know how to talk about the issue. That issue never affected me.”

    Despite his unwillingness to publicly offer his own distinct opinions on a national abortion ban or  the prosecutions of women who have abortions, Democrats were not willing to let him off the hook on Tuesday morning.

    “All of this cruelty and chaos can be traced back to Donald Trump,” Florida Democratic Party chair Nikki Fried said on a pre-scheduled Democratic National Committee press call. “He repeatedly refused to rule out a national abortion, ban endorsed the prosecution of women and doctors and left the door open to legislation that could rip away access to” in-vitro fertilization.”

    Vice President Kamala Harris will be in Jacksonville, Fla., on Wednesday for a rally focused on the fight for abortion rights. The Biden campaign said she will be there to “continue to make the case that Donald Trump did this.”

    Biden, Harris and Democrats across the country are campaigning against abortion restrictions in the hopes of repeating their electoral successes since Roe v. Wade was overturned in June 2022. A stronger-than-expected showing congressional Democrats that fall and in federal and local special elections since, as well as a successful series of statewide referendums protecting abortion rights in states like Ohio and Kansas, has encouraged them that the issue can be a winner for them this year.

    Biden, a devout Catholic who has long held personal objections to abortion, has said he would work to restore Roe v. Wade as the law of the land.

    “Donald Trump’s latest comments leave little doubt: if elected he’ll sign a national abortion ban, allow women who have an abortion to be prosecuted and punished, allow the government to invade women’s privacy to monitor their pregnancies, and put IVF and contraception in jeopardy nationwide,” Biden’s campaign manager Julie Chavez Rodriguez said in a statement. “The horrific and devastating stories in states like Florida, Texas and Arizona with extreme abortion bans unleashed by Trump overturning Roe are just the beginning if he wins.”

    “Simply put: November’s election will determine whether women in the United States have reproductive freedom, or whether Trump’s new government will continue its assault to control women’s health care decisions,” she added.

    Polling suggests most Americans agree with Biden and Democrats on the issues, even as the president runs about even with Trump in national polls and lags behind him in key swing states. 

    Two-thirds of Americans, including 67% of independents, would support a federal law codifying the right to an abortion, according to a February poll from the health policy nonprofit KFF. Nearly 60% of respondents said they oppose a 16-week abortion ban. And 41% of women said they trusted Biden more to “move abortion policy in the right direction,” compared to 25% for Trump and 22% who said neither. 

    Last month, Fox News’ polling outfit found a record high number of voters — 59% —  believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Compared to April 2022, the poll found double-digit increases in support for the legal right to an abortion among voters 65 and older, conservatives, Republicans and white evangelical Christians. Majorities opposed six-week and 15-week abortion bans.

    Joseph Konig

    Source link

  • Bill would allow Arizona abortion providers to practice in California temporarily

    Bill would allow Arizona abortion providers to practice in California temporarily

    Arizona abortion providers could practice in California under a new law designed to provide care to women who cross the state line as they face newly restrictive prohibitions at home.

    The bill introduced on Wednesday aims to expedite temporary authorization for those Arizona doctors to practice in both states and is the latest move by Gov. Gavin Newsom to make California a reproductive health “sanctuary” as abortion seekers in several Republican led states have lost access to care after the overturning of the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision in 2022.

    The proposal would temporarily allow licensed Arizona doctors to perform abortions and provide related care to Arizona patients traveling to California until the end of November. The Arizona doctors would be under the oversight of California’s Medical Board and Osteopathic Medical Board.

    The legislation, which if passed and signed by the governor would go into effect immediately, comes after the Arizona Supreme Court voted this month to impose a near total abortion ban, reinstating a law from 1864 that prohibits abortions except when the woman’s life is at risk.

    “Arizona Republicans continue to put women in danger — embracing a draconian law passed when Arizona was a territory, not even a state,” Newsom said in a statement released Wednesday morning. “California will not sit idly by.”

    The governor is working with the state legislature’s California Women’s Caucus to pass the bill.

    California saw a surge in abortions after the Supreme Court reversed Roe, and now clinics are bracing for more following the latest Arizona ruling.

    The bill is likely to pass with ease with Newsom’s support but is sure to reignite criticisms from Republican lawmakers who say the Democratic governor — widely viewed as a future presidential candidate — should focus more on California’s crises, including a budget deficit and surging homelessness, and less on out-of-state policies.

    The bill joins a litany of abortion measures that Newsom and California’s Democratic supermajority have approved in recent years — not just to enhance care in the Golden State but to provide support to nonresidents facing limited care nationwide.

    Last year, Newsom signed a bill into law to allow doctors living under “hostile” laws in states where abortion is banned to receive training in California.

    Earlier this week, at a news conference in Modesto, Newsom said that abortion access rollbacks have already “placed a burden” on California’s healthcare system, especially in Imperial, Riverside and San Diego counties, where clinics have seen an increase in out-of-staters, including patients from Arizona and Texas.

    On Sunday, Newsom launched another round of TV advertisements that call out red state antiabortion laws, this time to be aired in Alabama and focusing on proposals that aim to punish women for interstate travel to obtain services.

    Mackenzie Mays

    Source link

  • Supreme Court to consider when doctors can provide emergency abortions in states with bans

    Supreme Court to consider when doctors can provide emergency abortions in states with bans

    WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will consider Wednesday when doctors can provide abortions during medical emergencies in states with bans enacted after the high court’s sweeping decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

    The case comes from Idaho, which is one of 14 states that now ban abortion at all stages of pregnancy with limited exceptions. It marks the first time the Supreme Court has considered a state ban since Roe was reversed.

    The Biden administration argues that even in states where abortion is banned, federal health care law says hospitals must be allowed to terminate pregnancies in rare emergencies where a patient’s life or health is at serious risk.

    Idaho contends its ban has exceptions for life-saving abortions but allowing it in more medical emergencies would turn hospitals into “abortion enclaves.” The state argues the administration is misusing a health care law that is meant to ensure patients aren’t turned away based on their ability to pay.

    The Supreme Court has allowed the Idaho law to go into effect, even during emergencies, as the case played out.

    Doctors have said Idaho’s abortion ban has already affected emergency care. More women whose conditions are typically treated with abortions must now be flown out of state for care, since doctors must wait until they are close to death to provide abortions within the bounds of state law.

    Meanwhile, complaints of pregnant women being turned away from U.S. emergency rooms spiked after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, according to federal documents obtained by The Associated Press.

    Anti-abortion groups blame doctors for mishandling maternal emergency cases. Idaho argues the Biden administration overstates health care woes to undermine state abortion laws.

    The justices also heard another abortion case this term seeking to restrict access to abortion medication. It remains pending, though the justices overall seemed skeptical of the push.

    The Justice Department originally brought the case against Idaho, arguing the state’s abortion law conflicts with the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, known as EMTALA. It requires hospitals that accept Medicare to provide emergency care to any patient regardless of their ability to pay. Nearly all hospitals accept Medicare.

    A federal judge initially sided with the administration and ruled that abortions were legal in medical emergencies. After the state appealed, the Supreme Court allowed the law to go fully into effect in January.

    The Supreme Court is expected to rule by the end of June.

    Source link

  • Arizona Democrats poised to continue effort to repeal 1864 abortion ban

    Arizona Democrats poised to continue effort to repeal 1864 abortion ban

    When asked Tuesday how she feels about the Democratic effort in the Arizona State Legislature to repeal an 1864 abortion ban before it goes into effect, Democratic state Rep. Stephanie Stahl Hamilton laughed.

    “I was told that we could get a clean repeal tomorrow, but you know, who knows, right?” Stahl Hamilton said. “Who knows who loses their nerve, you know, the night before the day? Or minutes before, you know? All I know is we got to keep trying. And people in Arizona need us to continue to do everything we can to repeal this ban.”

    Earlier this month, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the highly-restrictive 160-year-old law that bans nearly all abortions can be enforced — blocking the procedure in all cases except to save the life of the mother. If allowed to take effect on June 8, it would supersede current law, which allows abortions up to 15 weeks of pregnancy.  

    Arizona state Rep. Stephanie Stahl Hamilton
    Arizona state Rep. Stephanie Stahl Hamilton listens during a legislative session in the Arizona House on April 17, 2024 in Phoenix, Arizona. 

    Getty Images


    Two previous attempts by Democrats to repeal the 1864 law by circumventing Republican House Speaker Ben Toma have failed to garner enough support for a vote on a rules change.

    An April 17 effort to repeal the ban by means of a temporary rule change fell one vote short. With the support of two Senate Republicans, the upper chamber was able to make headway by getting a first reading of a repeal bill, but two more readings are required before it could be brought to a vote. 

    Toma has been a vocal critic of Democrats on abortion. In a statement released immediately after the Arizona Supreme Court decision, Toma said that the legislature would “take the time needed to listen to our constituents and carefully consider appropriate actions, rather than rush legislation on a topic of this magnitude without a larger discussion.”

    He also claimed in his statement that “under the Democrats’ view, partial birth abortions would be allowed, and minors could get abortions on demand without parental consent or a court order,” even though there is no indication that a repeal of the 160-year-old law would allow either. 

    Arizona Senate Democrats have cast doubt on the future of any repeal efforts moving forward in the House. Stahl Hamilton acknowledged that getting Republican support to repeal the ban is a tall task. Even though they seem to have the numbers to do so, she is concerned that at the last minute, minds will change.  

    Democratic state Sen. Eva Burch told CBS News that the Republican caucus in Arizona is fractured and cannot agree on how to address the prospect of a Civil War era abortion ban going into effect. 

    “I have no confidence at all that the repeal is going to go through, certainly not in the way that it should — not in the way that’s being called for. We’ve already passed that point,” Burch said.

    “So do I think that they’re going to come together and do the right thing?” Burch went on. “I don’t have any faith that that’s what’s going to happen.”

    Democratic state Sen. Anna Hernandez also said she wasn’t confident in the prospect of any repeal effort, but noted “anything can happen.”

    The legislature is set to meet Wednesday morning and once again attempt to address the issue. 

    Arizona Right to Life, an anti-abortion group, is calling on legislators to oppose those efforts, and plans on organizing at the state capitol as well. 

    Source link

  • Biden in Tampa: Fact-checks of his claims on abortion, Trump

    Biden in Tampa: Fact-checks of his claims on abortion, Trump

    Eight days before a six-week abortion ban takes effect in Florida, President Joe Biden spoke in Tampa to lay blame for restrictive measures nationwide on one person: former President Donald Trump.

    In a 12-minute address April 23 at Hillsborough Community College, Biden warned of “extreme” laws that restrict abortion access, and he blamed Trump, his predecessor and presumptive 2024 rival, for making those policies possible.

    Biden criticized Trump for bragging about overturning Roe v. Wade and paving the way for states to enact strict limits on abortion. Using that new power, Biden said, Arizona reinstated an 1864 total abortion ban and Florida instituted its six-week ban.

    Biden and his running mate, Vice President Kamala Harris, in recent days have made abortion key to their campaign message. Biden shouted his remarks at times, but some of his statements left out context. 

    Biden’s address comes as Florida voters are set to decide whether to expand abortion rights in a high-stakes abortion measure on the November ballot.

    Polls show that six-week abortion bans are unpopular both nationally and in Florida. For bans later in pregnancy, around 16 weeks, polling results are inconsistent. A national KFF poll from February 2024 found that 58% opposed federal ban on abortion at 16 weeks while 42% said they would support one. But an Economist/YouGov poll the same month found the opposite: 48% favoring a 16-week ban, 36% opposed and 16% not sure. Polling also shows wide support for first-trimester abortions, but far less for second-trimester abortions. 

    Here are fact-checks of four things Biden said.

    “Don’t think (Trump) is not making a deal right now with MAGA extremists to ban abortion nationwide in every state, because he’s making it.”

    Although we can’t know what goes on in private, Biden’s claim conflicts with Trump’s most recent public comments on abortion.

    On April 8, Trump released a video on his abortion position and later told reporters that he wouldn’t sign a nationwide ban if it came to his desk.

    In his video, Trump boasted about appointing three justices to the U.S. Supreme Court who overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that federally protected abortion access. Trump also said he thought that abortion regulation should be left to the states, and that he supports exceptions for rape, incest and the pregnant woman’s life.

    On the campaign trail, Trump has criticized some of the stricter abortion bans. He called Florida’s six-week law poised to take effect May 1 “a terrible mistake.” And he agreed that Arizona’s newly resurrected 1864 total abortion ban went too far.

    Before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, Trump expressed more support for a federal abortion ban.

    In 1999, Trump described himself as “pro-choice.” He adopted an antiabortion stance around 2011, when he told a conservative committee that he was “pro-life.”

    When Trump was president in 2017, he endorsed a 20-week national abortion ban that failed to pass.

    In February, The New York Times reported that Trump floated a 16-week nationwide abortion ban in private discussions. In March, Trump indicated in a radio interview that he would back a 15-week ban. 

    Trump surrogates have discussed other executive actions Trump could use once in office, such as enforcing the Comstock Act — a 19th century law that bans the mailing of “obscene” material — that could outlaw abortion across the country by prohibiting sending materials such as medication and surgical equipment that could be used in abortions. Project 2025, a policy platform by a coalition of Trump-aligned groups for a second potential Trump presidency, also referred to the law in its online agenda.

    Trump hasn’t said he would enforce the law this way, but he hasn’t disavowed it either. 

    Trump “said, ‘There has to be punishment for women exercising their reproductive freedom.’” 

    This is misleading. In 2023, we rated a similar statement by Biden Mostly False

    Trump made a comment about punishing women in 2016 but quickly walked it back.

    During a March 2016 MSNBC town hall, an audience member asked Trump about his stance on women’s rights in reproductive health decisions. Trump said he was “pro-life,” with exceptions, but gave no further details. In a back-and-forth, host Chris Matthews asked Trump about legal penalties:

    Matthews: “Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no, as a principle?”

    Trump: “The answer is that there has to be some form of punishment.”

    Matthews: “For the woman?”

    Trump: “Yeah, there has to be some form.”

    But Trump retracted the comment that same day after pro- and anti-abortion activists roundly criticized him. He issued a statement that said he meant that physicians should be held legally responsible, not women. It said:

    “If Congress were to pass legislation making abortion illegal and the federal courts upheld this legislation, or any state were permitted to ban abortion under state and federal law, the doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman. The woman is a victim in this case as is the life in her womb.”

    The next day, Trump told “Fox & Friends” hosts, “If, in fact, abortion was outlawed, the person performing the abortion, the doctor or whoever it may be that is really doing the act is responsible for the act, not the woman, is responsible.”

    “And today, MAGA Republicans refused to repeal that (1864) ban in Arizona. Trump has literally taken us back 160 years.”

    This leaves out that Trump has criticized Arizona’s recent legal action affecting abortion access.

    On April 9, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled in favor of bringing back a Civil War-era law that would ban all abortions except when a pregnant woman’s life is endangered. Under the law, abortion providers could face two to five years in prison. Barring other legal or legislative action, the abortion measure could take effect as early as June.

    The law is part of Arizona’s Howell Code, nearly 500 pages of laws that governed the Arizona territory before the state’s official 1912 establishment.

    Following the court’s ruling, the Republican-led Arizona House blocked efforts to move forward on a repeal of the 1864 law. The state Senate launched a similar repeal effort.

    The Arizona court concluded that “absent the federal constitutional abortion right” the 1864 law is enforceable. Trump took credit for overturning that federal right.

    Following the ruling, Trump said April 10, “It’s all about state’s rights, and that’ll be straightened out. I’m sure that the governor and everybody else are going to bring it back into reason and that’ll be taken care of, I think, very quickly.”

    Trump was more specific on Truth Social two days later, stating that the Arizona court “went too far on their Abortion Ruling, enacting and approving an inappropriate Law from 1864.” He called on Arizona lawmakers to “remedy what has happened” and called for exceptions for rape, incest and the pregnant woman’s life.

    “One in three women throughout the United States of America” live in a state with an abortion ban at six weeks or sooner.

    This is accurate. At six weeks, most women don’t yet know they are pregnant and haven’t had a chance to see a doctor. And the number of women in that statistic is poised to grow when Florida’s six-week abortion ban takes effect May 1. 

    If the 1864 Arizona law takes effect, it would ban all abortions except when a pregnant woman’s life is in danger. Barring other legal or legislative action, the abortion measure could be instated as early as June, Axios reported.

    Excluding Florida and Arizona, about 21.5 million women and girls of reproductive age currently live in states that ban abortions completely, or after six weeks of pregnancy, U.S. Census data shows. That’s about 29% of women ages 15 to 49. 

    When adding in states that ban abortion after 12 or 15 weeks of pregnancy, the number of affected women grows to about 25 million, or about 40%.

    RELATED: All of our fact-checks on abortion, including statements by former President Donald Trump.

    Source link

  • Abortion returns to the spotlight in Italy 46 years after it was legalized

    Abortion returns to the spotlight in Italy 46 years after it was legalized

    ROME — Italian Premier Giorgia Meloni’s far-right-led government wants to allow anti-abortion groups access to women considering ending their pregnancies, reviving tensions around abortion in Italy 46 years after it was legalized in the overwhelmingly Catholic country.

    The Senate on Tuesday was voting on legislation tied to European Union COVID-19 recovery funds that includes an amendment sponsored by Meloni’s Brothers of Italy party. The text, already passed by the lower Chamber of Deputies, allows regions to permit groups “with a qualified experience supporting motherhood” to have access to public support centers where women considering abortions go to receive counseling.

    For the right, the amendment merely fulfills the original intent of the 1978 law legalizing abortion, known as Law 194, which includes provisions to prevent the procedure and support motherhood.

    For the left-wing opposition, the amendment marks a chipping away of abortion rights that opponents warned would follow Meloni’s 2022 election.

    “The government should realize that they keep saying they absolutely do not want to boycott or touch Law 194, but the truth is that the right-wing opposes women’s reproductive autonomy, fears women’s choices regarding motherhood, sexuality, and abortion,” Cecilia D’Elia, a Democratic Party senator, said at a protest this week against the legislation.

    Under the 1978 law, Italy allows abortion on request in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, or later if a woman’s health or life is endangered. It provides for publicly funded counseling centers to advise pregnant women of their rights and services offered if they want to terminate the pregnancies.

    But easy access to abortion isn’t always guaranteed. The law allows health care personnel to register as conscientious objectors and refuse to perform abortions, and many have, meaning women sometimes have to travel far to have the procedure.

    Meloni, who campaigned on a slogan of “God, fatherland and family,” has insisted she won’t roll back the 1978 law and merely wants to implement it fully. But she has also prioritized encouraging women to have babies to reverse Italy’s demographic crisis.

    Italy’s birthrate, already one of the lowest in the world, has been falling steadily for about 15 years and reached a record low last year with 379,000 babies born. Meloni’s conservative forces, backed strongly by the Vatican, have mounted a campaign to encourage at least 500,000 births annually by 2033, a rate that demographers say is necessary to prevent the economy from collapsing under the weight of Italy’s aging population.

    Meloni has called the left-wing opposition to the proposed amendment “fake news,” recalling that Law 194 provides for measures to prevent abortions, which would include counselling pregnant women about alternatives. The amendment specifically allows anti-abortion groups, or groups “supporting motherhood,” to be among the volunteer groups that can work in the counseling centers.

    “I think we have to guarantee a free choice,” Meloni said recently. “And to guarantee a free choice you have to have all information and opportunities available. And that’s what the Law 194 provides.”

    The new tensions over abortion in Italy come against the backdrop of developments elsewhere in Europe going somewhat in the opposite direction. France marked International Women’s Day by inscribing the guaranteed right to abortion into its constitution. Last year, overwhelmingly Catholic Malta voted to ease the strictest abortion laws in the EU. Polish lawmakers moved forward with proposals to lift a near-total ban on abortion enacted by the country’s previous right-wing government.

    At the same time, Italy’s left fears the country might go the way of the U.S., where states are restricting access after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down landmark legislation that had guaranteed access to abortion nationwide.

    Elly Schlein, head of Italy’s opposition Democratic Party, told a conference on women Tuesday that the country needs to establish an obligatory percentage of doctors willing to perform abortions in public hospitals, “otherwise these rights remain on paper only.”

    Source link

  • Trump’s brags on banning abortion could haunt him in Arizona

    Trump’s brags on banning abortion could haunt him in Arizona

    If ever there were a case study on shameless right-wing political hypocrisy and opportunism, abortion would be the issue and Arizona would be the setting. And women’s rights over their bodies would be all but marginal in the equation…

    Rekha Basu

    Source link

  • Supreme Court to hear major cases on homelessness, abortion, presidential immunity

    Supreme Court to hear major cases on homelessness, abortion, presidential immunity

    Supreme Court to hear major cases on homelessness, abortion, presidential immunity – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Jan Crawford looks ahead at an important week for the Supreme Court. The justices will hear arguments on several contentious issues, including abortion limits and a claim by former President Trump that presidents have legal immunity for their actions in office. First, they’ll hear a case focusing on homelessness and what can be done about it.

    Be the first to know

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


    Source link

  • Newsom calls out Republican abortion policies in new ad running in Alabama

    Newsom calls out Republican abortion policies in new ad running in Alabama

    In Gov. Gavin Newsom’s new political advertisement, two anxious young women in an SUV drive toward the Alabama state line.

    The passenger says she thinks they’re going to make it, before a siren blares and the flashing lights of a police car appear in the rearview mirror.

    “Miss,” a police officer who approaches the window says to the panicked driver, “I’m gonna need you to step out of the vehicle and take a pregnancy test.”

    The fictional video is the latest in a series of visceral advertisements the California governor has aired in other states to call out a conservative campaign to walk back reproductive rights since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the nationwide right to abortion two years ago.

    Newsom’s “Campaign for Democracy” will air the ad on broadcast networks and digital channels in Montgomery, Ala., for two weeks beginning on Monday, according to Lindsey Cobia, a senior advisor to Newsom. The governor is seeking to draw attention to attempts by Republican leaders to make it more difficult for residents of states with abortion bans to travel to other states for reproductive care.

    Brandon Richards, a spokesperson for Newsom, said the governor also is working with state lawmakers on a bill that would temporarily allow Arizona providers to provide abortion care to Arizona patients in California.

    Newsom’s office is coordinating the legislation with Arizona’s Gov. Katie Hobbs and Atty. Gen. Kris Mayes, Democrats who denounced a recent Arizona Supreme Court ruling that upheld an 1864 abortion ban. The ban, which has yet to take effect, allows only abortions that are medically necessary to save the life of a pregnant patient.

    “Arizona Atty. Gen. Kris Mayes identified a need to expedite the ability for Arizona abortion providers to continue to provide care to Arizonans as a way to support patients in their state seeking abortion care in California,” Richards said in a statement. “We are responding to this call and will have more details to share in the coming days.”

    California voters approved an amendment to the state constitution in 2022 that protects access to abortion up until the point that a doctor believes the fetus can survive on its own. Doctors are allowed to perform abortions at any stage if a pregnancy poses a risk to the health of the pregnant person.

    Since Roe vs. Wade was overturned, Newsom and state lawmakers have increased funding for people from out of state who seek abortions, and have cast the state as a safe haven for abortion services. The proposed legislation to make it easier for Arizona doctors to see patients in California is in response to an anticipated influx of patients from that state in light of the abortion ban.

    Democrats are seizing on the issue of abortion, which could offer a political advantage in a crucial election year.

    President Biden is campaigning for reelection in part on restoring the protections in Roe vs. Wade, and is blaming his presumptive GOP rival, former President Trump, for a wave of antiabortion policies.

    Trump recently said that abortion rights should be up to the states and that he would not sign a national ban, while at the same time taking credit for nominating conservative justices who helped overturn abortion rights in 2022.

    “He’s a liar. He’s not telling you the truth,” Newsom said in an interview with Jen Psaki on MSNBC. “He’s not level-setting. He’ll say whatever he needs to say on any day of the week.”

    Democrats nationally used Alabama as a lightning rod for the dangers of a Trump presidency earlier this spring after the Alabama Supreme Court ruled in a lawsuit that embryos may be considered children — a move that temporarily halted in vitro fertilization services in the state. Republican leaders quickly reversed course and passed a bill to protect IVF, a process that usually involves the destruction of some embryos.

    Alabama bans abortion at all stages of pregnancy, with no exception for pregnancies arising from rape. State Atty. Gen. Steve Marshall said last year that he could criminally prosecute people in Alabama who help women obtain abortions elsewhere — a claim the U.S. Justice Department has refuted.

    Taryn Luna

    Source link

  • Morning sickness? Prenatal check-ups? What to know about new rights for pregnant workers

    Morning sickness? Prenatal check-ups? What to know about new rights for pregnant workers

    Pregnant employees have the right to a wide range of accommodations under new federal regulations for enforcing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act that supporters say could change workplace culture for millions of people.

    The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the agency in charge of enforcing the law, adopted an expansive view of conditions related to pregnancy and childbirth in its proposed regulations, including a controversial decision to include abortion, fertility treatment and birth control as medical issues requiring job protections.

    The rules, which were adopted on a 3-2 vote along partisan lines, were published Monday and offer extensive guidelines for addressing more routine difficulties of pregnancy, such as morning sickness, back pain and needing to avoid heavy lifting. Labor advocates say the law will be especially transformative for pregnant women in low-wage jobs, who are often denied simple requests like more bathroom breaks.

    Here’s what to know about the law and the EEOC regulations.

    Congress passed the law with bipartisan support in December 2022 following a decade-long campaign by women’s rights and labor advocates, who argued that the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act did little to guarantee women would receive the accommodations they might need at work.

    The law stated only that pregnant workers should be treated the same as other employees, not that they deserved special consideration. To get their requests met, many pregnant workers therefore needed to demonstrate they had physical limitations covered under the Americans With Disabilities Act, often creating insurmountable hurdles.

    The new law treats pregnancy and related conditions as themselves deserving of “reasonable accommodations” and places the burden on employers to prove “undue hardships” for denying any requests.

    The law applies to employers of at least 15 workers. The EEOC estimates it will cover roughly 1.5 million pregnant workers in any given year. The EEOC regulations published April 15 are set to go into effect in June.

    The EEOC’s 400-page document encompasses a wide array of conditions and relevant advice for employers.

    It states that workers are entitled to unpaid time off for situations such as prenatal appointments, fertility treatments, abortion, miscarriage, postpartum depression and mastitis, an infection that arises from breastfeeding. This includes workers who are not covered by federal family leave laws and those who have not been on the job long enough to accrue time off.

    Workers can ask for flexible working arrangements to deal with morning sickness, such as a later start time, clearance to work from home or permission to carry snacks in workplaces where eating is typically prohibited. If they can’t sit or stand for extended periods due to sciatica, which is common in late pregnancy, they can request a schedule adjustment so their commutes happen during less crowded hours.

    The regulations also allow workers to be exempted from tasks such as climbing ladders or heavy lifting. If those duties are essential to their jobs, they can still request a temporary dispensation, according to the EEOC.

    Employers don’t have to accommodate workers exactly as requested but they must offer reasonable alternatives. They cannot deny a request without clearing a high bar to prove doing so would cause “undue hardships” for the organization’s finances or operations. They cannot force workers to take unpaid leave if a reasonable accommodation is available.

    The EEOC emphasizes that it “should not be complicated or difficult” for pregnant workers to request accommodations. Workers don’t have to make requests in writing, use specific words, cite any laws, or in most cases, provide documentation such as doctors’ notes. Employers must respond quickly and have a conversation about how to reasonably accommodate a worker’s needs.

    Still, legal experts advise both workers and employers to document the process. A Better Balance, the non-profit that spearheaded the 10-year campaign for the law’s passage, advises workers to familiarize themselves with their legal rights and be as specific as possible about their limitations and the changes they they need.

    Workers who believe a request was denied illegally can file a complaint with the EEOC. They have 180 days to do so, though the deadline can be extended in some states.

    The EEOC included abortion among the conditions covered under the law. The rules state, however, that employers are not obligated to cover expenses related to the procedure or to offer health insurance that does.

    The EEOC regulations argue that including abortion is consistent with the agency’s longstanding interpretation of other laws under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, including the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

    But the decision drew condemnation from Republican lawmakers who had championed the law’s passage. The five-member EEOC’s two Republican members voted against the regulations.

    In a statement explaining her dissent, Commissioner Andrea Lucas said the agency broadened the scope of the law “to reach virtually every condition, circumstance, or procedure that relates to any aspect of the female reproductive system” in ways that “cannot reasonably be reconciled with the text” of the law.

    Melissa Losch, a labor and employment attorney at the New Orleans-based firm McGlinchey Stafford, said she expects the regulations to give rise to further litigation. Losch cited the example of a worker living in a state with a restrictive abortion law requesting time off to undergo the procedure in another state. The EEOC rules provide “no good answer” about whether granting such a request would conflict with restrictive state abortion laws, she added.

    On February 27, a federal judge blocked enforcement of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act for Texas state employees, a ruling that came in response to a lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. Paxton argued the law was unconstitutional because it was part of a spending bill that passed in the House without a majority of members present, and the judge ruled in his favor.

    Gedmark, of A Better Balance, said she was optimistic the Biden administration would prevail in its expected appeal of the ruling. In the meantime, federal and private sectors workers in Texas are covered by the law.

    But in her dissenting statement, Lucas warned that if the Texas case or any future lawsuits succeed in overturning the law, the EEOC’s divisive rules have “all but extinguished” the chances of a bipartisan effort to reenact it.

    Employers have been obligated to abide by the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act since it took effect on June 27, 2023, though the EEOC regulations provided guidance on how to do so.

    The law swiftly made a difference to many low-wage workers, according to Gedmark.

    A Better Balance, which operates a helpline, has “heard an overwhelmingly positive experience from workers,” she said. Last summer, the organization worked with some women whose employers stopped resisting requests for accommodations as soon as the law took effect, Gedmark said.

    Some workers reported their employers were still operating under the old legal framework, handing them pages of disability paperwork to fill out in response to requests.

    The EEOC said it received almost 200 complaints alleging violations of the law by the time the fiscal year ended on Sept. 30, 2023.

    Gedmark said the success of the law will depend on enforcement and raising awareness.

    “If workers don’t know about the law and don’t know about their rights, then it really undermines the purpose of the law,” she said.

    ____

    The Associated Press’ women in the workforce and state government coverage receives financial support from Pivotal Ventures. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

    Source link

  • Arizona’s age of consent is not changed by 1864 abortion law

    Arizona’s age of consent is not changed by 1864 abortion law

    A controversial Arizona Supreme Court judgment reinstated an 1864 law that would ban nearly all abortions in the state. But one online claim painted the effort as being so arcane as to also make sex with children legal. 

    “The 1864 Arizona law forbidding abortions, upheld by the State Supreme Court, also sets the age of consent for females at 10 Years,” multiple Instagram posts say. The posts attribute the statement to horror novelist Stephen King, who made the comment in an April 12 X post

    (Screenshot from Instagram)

    We tried contacting King about this claim through his literary agent and an online form on his website but received no response.

    The Facebook and Instagram posts quoting him were flagged as part of Meta’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.)

    On April 9, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled in favor of bringing back a Civil War-era law that would ban all abortions except when a pregnant woman’s life is in danger. Under the law, abortion providers could face two to five years in prison. Barring other legal or legislative action, the abortion measure could take effect as early as June, according to Axios.

    The law is part of Arizona’s Howell Code, nearly 500 pages of laws that governed the Arizona territory before the state’s official 1912 establishment. The Howell Code also includes provisions on dueling, slavery, interracial marriages, the age of consent and abortion. 

    Although the Howell Code contains a provision in Chapter, 10, Section 47 that characterizes sex with girls younger than 10 years old as rape, the Arizona Supreme Court’s ruling reinstated only its abortion provision from Chapter 10, Section 45, which states: 

    “And every person who shall administer or cause to be administered or taken, any medicinal substances, or shall use or cause      to be used any instruments whatever, with the intention to procure the miscarriage of any woman then being with child, and shall be thereof duly convicted, shall be punished by imprisonment in the Territorial prison for a term not less than two years nor more than five years: Provided, that no physician shall be affected by the last clause of this section, who in the discharge of his professional duties deems it necessary to produce the miscarriage of any woman in order to save her life.”

    Jennifer Piatt, the co-director of Arizona State University’s Center for Public Health Law and Policy, told Politifact, “The Arizona Supreme Court’s ruling, while reawakening a Civil War-era abortion ban originally passed in 1864, did not revitalize other centuries old restrictions found in the Howell Code, including provisions setting lower ages of consent.” 

    Arizona law continues to hold that a person can legally consent to having sex at age 18.

    Our ruling

    King claimed that, “The 1864 Arizona law forbidding abortions, upheld by the State Supreme Court, also sets the age of consent for females at 10 years.” 

    Strictly speaking, the code from which the 1864 abortion law was drawn did include a provision that criminalized sex with girls younger than age 10.

    However, the statement is misleading in that the Arizona Supreme Court’s action did not involve the age of consent, which remains 18 under Arizona’s statute. We rate this claim Mostly False. 

    Source link

  • 4/17: CBS Evening News

    4/17: CBS Evening News

    4/17: CBS Evening News – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Justice Department nears settlement with Larry Nassar victims; Caitlin Clark’s salary highlights pay disparity between NBA and WNBA

    Be the first to know

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


    Source link

  • “I’m Here…to Represent Jesus Christ”: Arizona Republicans Block Second Attempt to Repeal Civil War–Era Abortion Ban

    “I’m Here…to Represent Jesus Christ”: Arizona Republicans Block Second Attempt to Repeal Civil War–Era Abortion Ban

    After the Arizona Supreme Court reinstated a 1864 law banning virtually all abortions, including in cases of incest and rape, the response across the country was deafening, and not in a good way. From people who believe in reproductive rights, sure, but also from many Republicans, including Donald Trump, who fear the move will cost the party elections. It went “too far,” the man who brags about killing Roe v. Wade told reporters, adding, desperately, “I’m sure that the governor and everybody else are going to bring it back into reason.” But a week later, things have not been brought back “into reason,” because Republicans in the state are apparently intent on letting the barbaric law stand.

    On Wednesday, Arizona Republicans blocked the second effort in two weeks to repeal the Civil War–era abortion ban. According to The New York Times, after GOP lawmakers initially resisted Democratic efforts to reverse the law last week, “cajoling” from Trump and Arizona Senate candidate Kari Lake* looked like it was going to translate to an about-face this week, with Democrats signaling “that they were optimistic of having enough Republican support to secure a majority and send the repeal bill to the State Senate.” But after a Democratic lawmaker attempted to bring forward legislation to repeal the ban, Republicans blocked it on procedural grounds, preventing a vote on the floor. “The fact that we will not even entertain a motion to allow those who have been raped or pregnant by incest to be able to have an abortion is extremely, extremely disappointing,” state representative Alma Hernandez said Wednesday. “Why won’t these cowards allow the vote to come to the floor?” Rolande Baker, who was sitting in the gallery, asked the Times. “What are they afraid of, that it might just pass? That Arizona just might get ourselves out of the year 1864? Before the end of the Civil War? Before women had a right to vote?”

    House Speaker Ben Toma, apparently unconcerned with the Arizonans who may need abortions now, said: “The last thing we should be doing today is rushing a bill through the legislative process to repeal a law that has been enacted and reaffirmed by the Legislature several times.” Even more alarming—for those who not only believe in reproductive freedom but that pesky idea of separation of church and state—were the remarks from Ka’rin Royster, an Arizona Republican Party precinct committee member. “I’m here, before representing the people in my precinct, to represent Jesus Christ,” she said. “It doesn’t have to be picture-perfect for people to get pregnant.”

    Should Republicans continue to block efforts to repeal the law, voters may have a chance to do it themselves, as signatures are currently being gathered to get a ballot measure enshrining abortion access in the state constitution on the November ballot.

    *Who initially supported the law, then lied about supporting it, and now openly opposes it.

    And if there’s one thing that’s as good as gold, it’s Donald Trump’s word

    X content

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

    Republicans will, uh, get back to y’all on that one

    X content

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

    Elsewhere!

    Speaker Mike Johnson moves on foreign aid, possibly triggering vote to oust him

    The Washington PostRead More

    Senate rejects impeachment articles against DHS Secretary Mayorkas

    NBC News • Read More

    Trump rails against wind energy in fundraising pitch to oil executives

    The Washington PostRead More

    Librarians say they face threats, lawsuits, jail fears over ongoing book battles

    ABC News • Read More

    Joe Biden says Trump “doesn’t deserve to be the commander in chief for my son”

    CNBC • Read More

    Bob Menendez’s Possible Legal Defense: My Wife Did It!

    New YorkRead More

    Trump hush money prosecutors seek to ask about fraud, E. Jean Carroll

    Reuters • Read More

    Axe Body Spray Finds an Unlikely New Customer: Grouchy Sheep

    WSJRead More

    Bess Levin

    Source link

  • Kansas governor vetoes ban on gender-affirming care for minors, anti-abortion bills

    Kansas governor vetoes ban on gender-affirming care for minors, anti-abortion bills

    Kansas’ governor on Friday vetoed a proposed ban on gender-affirming care for minors, a measure to require more reporting from abortion providers and what she called a “vague” bill making it a crime to coerce someone into having an abortion.

    Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly’s actions set up a series of confrontations with the Republican-supermajority Legislature over those issues. The measures appeared to have the two-thirds majorities needed in both chambers to override vetoes, but GOP leaders’ success depends on how many lawmakers are absent on a given day, especially in the House.

    The two-term governor, who is term-limited, is a strong supporter of abortion and LGBTQ+ rights. Republicans control the Legislature, and they’ve joined other GOP lawmakers across the U.S. in rolling back transgender rights.

    But Kansas has been an outlier on abortion among states with Republican legislatures because the Kansas Supreme Court declared in 2019 that the state constitution protects abortion rights, and a statewide vote in August 2022 decisively affirmed that position.

    “Voters do not want politicians getting between doctors and their patient by interfering in private medical decisions,” Kelly wrote in her veto message on the abortion reporting bill.

    Kelly did allow one GOP proposal on a social issue highlighted by Republicans across the U.S. to become law without her signature. Starting July 1, pornography websites must verify that Kansas visitors are adults. Kansas will follow Texas and a handful of other states despite some concerns about privacy and how broadly the law could be applied.

    In rejecting an attempt to have Kansas join at least 24 other states in banning or restricting gender-affirming care for minors, Kelly argued that a ban “tramples parental rights” and targets “a small group.”

    “If the Legislature paid this much attention to the other 99.8% of students, we’d have the best schools on earth,” she wrote.

    The Kansas bill against gender-affirming care would bar surgery, hormone treatments and puberty blockers, limiting care for minors to therapy.

    “Hopefully this will be the end of that, at least this year, and they don’t decide to waste anyone’s time anymore,” Jenna Bellemere, a transgender University of Kansas student, said after learning of the veto.

    The bill also would require that the state revoke the licenses of any doctors violating the ban and bar recipients of state funds for treating children or state employees who work with children from advocating gender-affirming care for them. It would ban the use of state dollars and property on such care, which restricts the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City, Kansas.

    Supporters of the bill argue the ban will protect children from experimental, possibly dangerous and potentially permanent treatments. They have cited the recent decision of the National Health Service in England to no longer routinely cover such treatments. Senate President Ty Masterson, a Wichita-area Republican, said of Kelly, “The radical left controls her veto pen.”

    “Laura Kelly will most surely find herself on the wrong side of history with her reckless veto of this common-sense protection for Kansas minors,” said Kansas House Speaker Dan Hawkins, a Wichita Republican.

    But U.S. states’ bans go against the recommendations of major American health care groups, including the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics. Also, many medical professionals say providing such care makes transgender children less prone to depression or suicidal thoughts.

    Last year, Republican legislators overrode Kelly vetoes to ban transgender girls and women on female K-12 and college sports teams and end the state’s legal recognition of transgender people’s gender identities. Because of the latter law, Kansas no longer allows transgender people to change the listing for sex on their driver’s licenses or birth certificates.

    Republican lawmakers also have continued to press for new laws on abortion, despite the August 2022 vote, arguing that voters still support “reasonable” regulations and support for pregnant women and new mothers.

    “Once again, Governor ‘Coercion Kelly’ has shown how radical she is when it comes to abortion, lacking basic compassion for women who are pushed or even trafficked into abortions,” Danielle Underwood, spokesperson for Kansans for Life, the state’s most influential anti-abortion group, said in a statement.

    The anti-coercion bill would punish someone convicted of making a physical or financial threat against a woman or girl to push her to have an abortion with up to a year in prison or a fine of up to $10,000. In her veto message, Kelly noted that it’s already a crime to threaten someone else.

    Critics said it’s written broadly enough that it could apply to a spouse who threatens divorce or a live-in boyfriend who threatens to leave unless their partner gets an abortion.

    The reporting bill would require providers to ask their patients why they want to terminate their pregnancies and report the information to the state health department. Kelly and other critics contend it’s invasive and unnecessary, but supporters argue that the state needs better data about why women and girls have abortions to help set policy.

    “These stigmatizing bills were not crafted to improve the health and well-being of Kansans,” said Emily Wales, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Great Plains, which operates three clinics providing abortions in Kansas. “They were merely meant to shame reproductive care.”

    Source link