ReportWire

Tag: Roe v. Wade

  • JD Vance, Conservative Influencers, and Gen Z Nuns: After Charlie Kirk, the March for Life Seizes a Moment

    At the annual March for Life in Washington, DC on Friday, a “hello pro-life America” chant grows as bobble hats, ear muffs and Charlie Kirk signs accumulate. To my left, a man in a gray suit with a cobalt blue mullet scrolls Google, searching for the definition of “euthanasia.” On my right, a gaggle of teenage boys workshop an ICE jingle while one of them beatboxes. Vice President JD Vance will speak, thousands are expected, and to top it all off, a major snowstorm is rolling in.

    In the wake of Kirk’s death last September, this year’s march reflects a heightened urgency to make abortion a political priority. Kirk heavily advocated for the pro-life movement, saying, “it’s not enough to be against abortion; we have to actually help women choose life,” a stance his widow, Erika, now the CEO of Turning Point USA, the conservative organization her late husband created, has continued to espouse in public events. Now, Kirk’s influence is palpable as young people from Turning Point USA, Students For Life, and Counteract USA, among other groups, mobilize at the March for Life.

    And with Vance, a potential 2028 presidential candidate, aligning himself so closely with the pro-life movement, there’s little ambiguity throughout the day about where attendees’ votes will eventually land.

    People hold a Charlie Kirk sign as they march in the 53rd annual March for Life rally in Washington, DC, on January 23, 2026.

    SAUL LOEB/Getty Images

    “We’re here because life begins at conception,” Lily, a 17-year-old from Chicago, tells me. “We’re here to save all the babies, and we won’t stop coming until till abortion is ended.” She has traveled with peers from St. James at Sag Bridge Catholic Church in Illinois and lands, without hesitation, on Kirk and Candace Owens being her role models.

    In the background, Christian music plays out across the capitol grounds as the crowd enjoys the rally and performances that are a prelude to the march. Like much of the young conservative activism circuit, it’s similar to a festival, with entertainment and celebrations drawing out over a few days.

    Signs of the annual rally, which has been held in Washington since 1974, when it started as a protest against Roe v. Wade, began when I stepped off the Amtrak at DC’s Union Station on Thursday. Looking up at the vaulted marble ceiling, it was almost easy to miss the group of people being siphoned off from the train behind a wall decorated with grass into a private networking event for The White Rose Resistance. The group, who call themselves a nationwide movement with a mission to be “a voice for unborn children,” share their name with the nonviolent German resistance group led by Hans and Sophie Scholl against the Nazis.

    Olivia Empson

    Source link

  • Supreme Court takes aim at gay marriage ruling. Good | Opinion

    The decision written by former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy should be reversed.

    The decision written by former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy should be reversed.

    Getty Images file photo

    You might have missed the news blip this week that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to its 2015 gay marriage decision, Obergefell v. Hodges. The decision of an overwhelmingly conservative court next year could very well be one of the year’s biggest stories, dividing Americans like nothing since the Trump court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

    I’ve been a backer of gay marriage since the 1990s, when Andrew Sullivan made the case that marriage would push gay life more into the traditionalist mold of heterosexual life shaped by the responsibilities of the modern marriage covenant. The committed love of an older lesbian colleague and a gay teacher had something to do with my thinking, as well.

    The best thing about Obergefell is that in the decade since it legalized gay marriage in all 50 states, all the religious right’s scary arguments about the moral and social breakdown married gays would unleash upon society have been shown to be bunk. The worst thing I’ve seen is that the LGBTQ community is just as bad at marriage as the rest of us. I’m no paragon. Just ask my wives.

    But even then, I am all for the Supreme Court overturning the decision that was Anthony Kennedy’s last big foray into philosophizing. His ruling, joined by the court’s liberals, is farrago of falsehoods and flapdoodle with a complete disregard for the Constitution, which much to the annoyance of the left simply doesn’t have anything to say about the debate at hand other than to require that we resolve things as a democratic republic should — by voting.

    One way you can tell whether your spouse in a marital argument or your swing-vote Supreme Court justice has gone off the rails is when they start using words like “all” and “always.” Kennedy takes all the way to the second sentence of the decision to get sideways with reality: “The lifelong union of a man and a woman always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons, without regard to their station in life.”

    “Always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons,” huh? Guess he’s never heard of marriages that can be undone with a brief incantation and the wife cast aside. Guess he’s never heard of the places where wife beating and marital rape were standard. That’s a lot of nobility, right there.

    The next paragraph gets even better. “Since the dawn of history, marriage has transformed strangers into relatives, binding families and societies together. Confucius taught that marriage lies at the foundation of government. This wisdom …”

    Confucius had a lot of wisdom about how marriage should be conducted. Wife chattel? Check. Wife can’t own property? Check. Wife to obey husband in all things? Check. Corporal punishment for bad wives? Check.

    That’s some wisdom from Confucius about the “dignity” of wives. Let me go out on a limb to say if your opinion on gay marriage starts off by citing Confucian wisdom, you might be a little confused about history.

    Scalia: Let public debate continue

    Kennedy is no less confused about his job interpreting the Constitution. He opines that his “method respects our history and learns from it without allowing the past alone to rule the present.”

    But the thing about Constitution is that the whole point is for the past to rule the present, unless legislators take up the arduous task of amending it. The First Amendment from the distant past gives us the right to free speech. The past absolutely rules that you cannot throw irritating columnists in jail for what they write, no matter how much you want to, without changing the Constitution.

    Justice Antonin Scalia, who knew what his job was, had it exactly right when he wrote in dissent, “When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these cases. When it comes to determining the meaning of a vague constitutional provision — such as ‘due process of law’ or ‘equal protection of the laws’ — it is unquestionable that the People who ratified that provision did not understand it to prohibit a practice that remained both universal and uncontroversial in the years after ratification. We have no basis for striking down a practice. … Since there is no doubt whatever that the People never decided to prohibit the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the public debate over same-sex marriage must be allowed to continue.”

    In short, the men who reshaped our country’s Constitution in the wake of the Civil War did not accidentally legalize gay marriage, no matter how much Justice Kennedy might twist logic and history to make it seem so.

    I want gay marriage to be legal. I will vote 100 times to make it so if that is what it takes. But just because I like the outcome of a Supreme Court case does not make it good law. The Supreme Court should strike this monstrosity down, and Congress should go about making it law the right way.

    David Mastio is a national columnist for McClatchy and The Kansas City Star.

    Related Stories from Raleigh News & Observer

    David Mastio, a former deputy editorial page editor for the liberal USA TODAY and the conservative Washington Times, has worked in opinion journalism as a commentary editor, editorial writer and columnist for 30 years. He was also a speechwriter for the George W. Bush administration.
    Support my work with a digital subscription

    David Mastio

    Source link

  • Supreme Court takes aim at gay marriage ruling. Good | Opinion

    The decision written by former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy should be reversed.

    The decision written by former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy should be reversed.

    Getty Images file photo

    You might have missed the news blip this week that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to its 2015 gay marriage decision, Obergefell v. Hodges. The decision of an overwhelmingly conservative court next year could very well be one of the year’s biggest stories, dividing Americans like nothing since the Trump court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

    I’ve been a backer of gay marriage since the 1990s, when Andrew Sullivan made the case that marriage would push gay life more into the traditionalist mold of heterosexual life shaped by the responsibilities of the modern marriage covenant. The committed love of an older lesbian colleague and a gay teacher had something to do with my thinking, as well.

    The best thing about Obergefell is that in the decade since it legalized gay marriage in all 50 states, all the religious right’s scary arguments about the moral and social breakdown married gays would unleash upon society have been shown to be bunk. The worst thing I’ve seen is that the LGBTQ community is just as bad at marriage as the rest of us. I’m no paragon. Just ask my wives.

    But even then, I am all for the Supreme Court overturning the decision that was Anthony Kennedy’s last big foray into philosophizing. His ruling, joined by the court’s liberals, is farrago of falsehoods and flapdoodle with a complete disregard for the Constitution, which much to the annoyance of the left simply doesn’t have anything to say about the debate at hand other than to require that we resolve things as a democratic republic should — by voting.

    One way you can tell whether your spouse in a marital argument or your swing-vote Supreme Court justice has gone off the rails is when they start using words like “all” and “always.” Kennedy takes all the way to the second sentence of the decision to get sideways with reality: “The lifelong union of a man and a woman always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons, without regard to their station in life.”

    “Always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons,” huh? Guess he’s never heard of marriages that can be undone with a brief incantation and the wife cast aside. Guess he’s never heard of the places where wife beating and marital rape were standard. That’s a lot of nobility, right there.

    The next paragraph gets even better. “Since the dawn of history, marriage has transformed strangers into relatives, binding families and societies together. Confucius taught that marriage lies at the foundation of government. This wisdom …”

    Confucius had a lot of wisdom about how marriage should be conducted. Wife chattel? Check. Wife can’t own property? Check. Wife to obey husband in all things? Check. Corporal punishment for bad wives? Check.

    That’s some wisdom from Confucius about the “dignity” of wives. Let me go out on a limb to say if your opinion on gay marriage starts off by citing Confucian wisdom, you might be a little confused about history.

    Scalia: Let public debate continue

    Kennedy is no less confused about his job interpreting the Constitution. He opines that his “method respects our history and learns from it without allowing the past alone to rule the present.”

    But the thing about Constitution is that the whole point is for the past to rule the present, unless legislators take up the arduous task of amending it. The First Amendment from the distant past gives us the right to free speech. The past absolutely rules that you cannot throw irritating columnists in jail for what they write, no matter how much you want to, without changing the Constitution.

    Justice Antonin Scalia, who knew what his job was, had it exactly right when he wrote in dissent, “When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. That resolves these cases. When it comes to determining the meaning of a vague constitutional provision — such as ‘due process of law’ or ‘equal protection of the laws’ — it is unquestionable that the People who ratified that provision did not understand it to prohibit a practice that remained both universal and uncontroversial in the years after ratification. We have no basis for striking down a practice. … Since there is no doubt whatever that the People never decided to prohibit the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples, the public debate over same-sex marriage must be allowed to continue.”

    In short, the men who reshaped our country’s Constitution in the wake of the Civil War did not accidentally legalize gay marriage, no matter how much Justice Kennedy might twist logic and history to make it seem so.

    I want gay marriage to be legal. I will vote 100 times to make it so if that is what it takes. But just because I like the outcome of a Supreme Court case does not make it good law. The Supreme Court should strike this monstrosity down, and Congress should go about making it law the right way.

    David Mastio is a national columnist for McClatchy and The Kansas City Star.

    Related Stories from Fort Worth Star-Telegram

    David Mastio, a former deputy editorial page editor for the liberal USA TODAY and the conservative Washington Times, has worked in opinion journalism as a commentary editor, editorial writer and columnist for 30 years. He was also a speechwriter for the George W. Bush administration.
    Support my work with a digital subscription

    David Mastio

    Source link

  • How New Mexico Became a Sanctuary State for Health Care

    When I spoke with Espey over the phone, she was on her way to Las Cruces, just a few miles from the state’s border with Texas, to care for patients at the Planned Parenthood clinic there. As demand from out-of-state patients increased, she said, clinics have opened throughout the state. “Even in Gallup, which is a much more conservative town, some very brave providers there are now providing abortion care.” Between 2020 and 2023, the number of abortions performed in the state increased by more than two hundred and fifty per cent, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which advocates for sexual and reproductive health. Most patients were from out of state, the majority of them Texans. As Texas has sought to access patients’ medical records in other states, New Mexico passed a shield law that protects such information.

    New Mexico’s strong stance on abortion may seem surprising since it is more rural and more religious than much of the country. “New Mexico’s the West, not the South,” McFarlane said. “It might be religious, but it’s not as evangelical as some other states.” She also pointed out that more than half of the members of the state legislature are women, making the state second only to Nevada in terms of female representation. Lujan Grisham said she believes that the state’s high rates of poverty contribute to general support for abortion. “When you have access-to-health-care problems, as we do, it is not lost on any New Mexican how risky taking away our fundamental reproductive rights are,” she said. “And when you’re a particularly poor state, that can be much more pronounced.”

    Lujan Grisham, who was elected governor in 2018, after serving a stint in the House of Representatives, has made abortion advocacy a key focus of her political career. “I was the first congressional candidate, I believe, to run on abortion care, and to use the term. Yes, it’s choice, and it’s reproductive rights, but I’m going to protect a woman’s access to and right to an abortion,” she told me. “I got a lot of pushback from a lot of folks, but, in fact, it’s why I won the election.” New Mexico allows the governor a certain amount of discretionary funding that can be spent on projects that require significant capital outlay. Lujan Grisham has allocated twenty million dollars to build reproductive-health clinics, one currently under construction in Las Cruces and another planned for northern New Mexico. “I want more abortion and abortion care available where people are, and I want more primary-care access for women and their families,” Lujan Grisham said.

    Espey, who will help get the Las Cruces clinic up and running, said that it will provide “care across the women’s reproductive-health spectrum,” including contraception, basic fertility treatments, doula services, menopause care, and abortion, as well as basic primary care, immunizations, and cancer screenings. Though the clinic is intended for New Mexicans, Espey expects that many Texans will be treated there, too. Treating out-of-state patients will help with the clinic’s financial viability, Lujan Grisham told me. “They’re paying for the full cost of their care, and that’s helpful,” she said. “They can help offset losses from New Mexicans who have no coverage, or who are on Medicaid.”

    Lujan Grisham is also hoping that the state’s embrace of abortion care will help attract more doctors and address the state’s long-standing shortage of health-care workers. Last year, New Mexico took out full-page ads in five Texas newspapers, urging medical professionals to relocate. “I certainly respect those of you who remain committed to caring for patients in Texas, but I also invite those of you who can no longer tolerate these restrictions to consider practicing next door in New Mexico,” the ad, framed as an open letter signed by Lujan Grisham, said. “We’re fiercely committed to protecting medical freedoms here and we’re taking steps to ensure that what happened in Texas never happens in New Mexico.”

    The state’s embrace of abortion has met with some backlash. Anti-abortion groups have paid for billboards near the Texas-New Mexico border, urging women travelling for abortions to turn back. An organization called Stop the Clinic has been attempting to prevent the Las Cruces center from being built, in part by urging local companies to refuse to work on the project.

    Some of the fiercest battles have taken place in the oil-field towns of eastern New Mexico, the most conservative part of the state. (In Lea County, in the southeast corner of the state, Donald Trump won eighty per cent of the vote last year.) In 2023, Laura Wight, a co-founder of Eastern New Mexico Rising, a local progressive group, spotted a flyer advertising the Texas anti-abortion activist Mark Lee Dickson’s appearance at a church in Clovis, near the Texas border. Dickson has spent the past decade urging cities and counties, mostly in Texas, to declare themselves “sanctuary cities for the unborn.” After his church appearance, Dickson spoke before the city council, urging Clovis to join the ranks of sanctuary cities. “We don’t have a clinic here. We’ve never had a clinic here,” Wight told me. Still, she saw Dickson’s lobbying as a “five-alarm fire.” In Texas, Dickson’s efforts had initially seemed symbolic—most of the self-anointed sanctuary cities were places that had never had an abortion clinic—but they eventually became part of a novel legal strategy that resulted in the state’s “bounty hunter” abortion bill, which allows private citizens to sue abortion providers.

    Rachel Monroe

    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

    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.

    Katie Herchenroeder

    Source link

  • Video: Where Harris and Trump Stand on Abortion

    Video: Where Harris and Trump Stand on Abortion

    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.

    Source link

  • Virginia abortion patients, new report highlight barriers to accessing care despite fewer restrictions – WTOP News

    Virginia abortion patients, new report highlight barriers to accessing care despite fewer restrictions – WTOP News

    A sign outside a clinic that provides abortions in Richmond, Va. (Sarah Vogelsong/Virginia Mercury) A sign outside a clinic that…

    This article was reprinted with permission from Virginia Mercury. 

    A sign outside a clinic that provides abortions in Richmond, Va. (Sarah Vogelsong/Virginia Mercury)

    Editor’s note: The Virginia Mercury is not using the last names of the women in this article to protect their privacy and safety. The accounts of all three women have been verified with medical records and by a medical professional with knowledge of their experiences.

    Nisa knew her third pregnancy was a non-starter. She didn’t know that she would fear death for 18 days while trying to get an abortion.

    “I felt like I had a ticking time bomb inside of me,” she said.

    This is because Nisa has Von Willebrand Disease, a genetic blood disorder that prevents clotting. It puts her at higher risk for bleeding to death during things like injuries, surgeries, or if she were to have a miscarriage.

    Her first two pregnancies had been challenging and once she had been diagnosed with the blood disorder, she’d decided not to have more children for fear of complications or passing the disease onto others. By the time she became unexpectedly pregnant last summer, she was also in the throes of Stage 4 endometriosis symptoms — a diagnosis that would later lead to her having a hysterectomy. She’d also had an endometrial ablation to treat endometriosis symptoms before finding out she was pregnant last summer — placing her in a more at-risk pregnancy.

    Under 10 weeks of gestation at the time, Nisa said she otherwise would have been able to take abortion medication. With her disease, she couldn’t. Surgical abortions also posed challenges because she needed to have specific medications and extra blood on standby. The procedure was denied by her local providers in coastal Virginia, she said, and the local Planned Parenthood facilities didn’t have the resources. A hospital was her best bet for completing the procedure, but it took 18 days to sort out an abortion at VCU Health in Richmond.

    Despite Virginia’s status as the least-restrictive Southern state for abortion access, Nisa wonders how many others may be falling through health care gaps as she did.

    “Virginia is not safe. We think we’re safe, but we’re not,” she said. “How do you treat a person who isn’t the standard in this post-Roe world?”

    Virginia’s barriers

    Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade two and a half years ago, states around the country have shored up their protections or enacted various bans and restrictions. And though Virginia is the least restrictive Southern state — and a bastion for out-of-state patients — a new report indicates some hurdles.

    In Virginia, abortion is legal for any reason until around 26 weeks, with limited exceptions for later abortions. In those cases, three physicians must attest that someone’s physical or mental health would be “irremediably impaired” if a pregnancy were to continue. Conversely, surrounding states have near-total bans or limits as low as 6 weeks on the procedure.

    Key findings from the RAND Corporation report noted how abortion law is currently housed in Virginia’s criminal code (a Class 4 felony for unlawfully conducted abortions), the three-physician threshold for some abortions, and lack of clarity on the “ability to provide second-trimester abortions in non-hospital settings.”

    Dr. William Fitzhugh, who runs clinics in Richmond, Newport News and Roanoke, said he’s seen a flux of out-of-state patients over the past two years. But sometimes, he’s had to refer patients elsewhere. For example, by the time a Tennessee patient had made it to one of his clinics, she was 28 weeks along, he said, so he referred her to Maryland where there are no gestation limits.

    “I worry for other women in gray areas like mine,” Nisa said. “I had family that could help watch my kids and I didn’t have to travel far, but I still had to travel in my own state. There are women who can’t take time off work or have childcare.”

    North Carolina resident Kishia ended up having to take time off work and her children had to miss school for a few days so they could travel to Fitzhugh’s Richmond clinic for her 14-year-old daughter to get an abortion.

    She called the experience “H-E-double-L.”

    More important, Kishia said, is the fact that her daughter Myasia has been in pain.

    At 19-weeks of gestation, she couldn’t legally obtain an abortion in North Carolina and being further into gestation means a more invasive abortion procedure. In these cases, small rods are typically placed in the cervix to prepare it for an abortion to occur the next day. Kishia said the family would have sought an abortion sooner if they could have.

    Myasia has had regular menstrual cycles, her mother said, and with bleeding in early gestation common in 15% to 25% of pregnancies, Myasia hadn’t realized right away that she was pregnant. By the time she did and told her mother, when they visited a clinic in Charlotte they were told she was too far along for the state’s 12-week limit.

    “People get abortions for different reasons,” Kishia stressed as she noted that people can have medical issues, or be young and not emotionally or financially ready to care for an unplanned child. In Myasia’s case, she is still technically a child herself.

    With a smile, Kishia said that she is grateful her family was able to connect with an abortion fund to offset travel costs. She said she doesn’t plan on having to go through their ordeal again.

    Kishia said she’s somewhat tuned in to state, congressional, presidential and gubernatorial elections. As her chance to vote in North Carolina this fall approaches, she’ll be thinking about abortion access and other reproductive rights.

    “I don’t think this should ever be banned,” she said.

    Legal challenges

    Another finding in the RAND report noted local-level abortion hurdles when it comes to city, town and county governments in the state. Such is the case in  parts of Southwest Virginia, where local governments have ordinances to deter the establishment of abortion clinics. A clinic in Bristol has been embroiled in lawsuits with its building’s landlords that threaten its existence. Conversely, Alexandria passed an ordinance to make it easier for clinics to open and Richmond recently transferred land for cheap to Planned Parenthood to set up another clinic in town.

    At the state level, democratic  lawmakers still plan to strengthen Virginia’s abortion access laws. In 2025, they plan to introduce a proposed constitutional amendment. It will need to pass two years in a row with a House of Delegates election in between before appearing on statewide ballots for voters to approve or reject. Placing protections in the constitution would make them less susceptible to partisan shifts in the legislature over time. Even Republican-leaning states have approved similar ballot measures in recent years, showing that it is not a totally partisan issue.

    It wouldn’t be the first time Virignia has tried to enshrine abortion access in its constitution. Similar proposals have failed in the two previous legislative sessions. A sticking point had been language that GOP lawmakers alleged was too broad and would go further than Roe’s legal framework.

    The language, much like language in other states’ passed amendments, would declare people have a right to abortion unless there is a “compelling state interest.”

    Where Roe balanced the right to obtain an abortion and health of the pregnant person with the potential life of a fetus, constitutionally protecting access within a state would operate similarly.

    It’s unclear what the language of the next attempted abortion amendment  would be but Sen. Ghazala Hashmi, D-Chesterfield — who plans to co-sponsor it again — said there will be more to discuss later this year.

    “We are still working on the language to ensure that our constitutional amendment effectively protects safe and legal access to abortion in Virginia.”

    Ivy Lyons

    Source link

  • Debra Shigley: No right, and NOBODY, is safe

    Debra Shigley: No right, and NOBODY, is safe

    Like many women in Georgia and across the country — I was shaken to my core the day that Roe v. Wade was overturned. I am a mother of five children. I know there is no safe pregnancy without access to abortion care. Without control over our bodies, we are not free. The warnings of what the Supreme Court intended to do didn’t lessen the shock – I felt a deep anger, sadness, and grief. I knew that the Georgia abortion ban was deadly. Now I feel that same anger, sadness, and grief as I see the worst case scenario come to pass. 

    Just this week, we learned of Amber Nicole Thurman, a 28 year-old mother, who died after becoming septic when doctors delayed performing a routine Dilation and Curettage (D&C) procedure. Thurman suffered in pain for more than 20 hours, her organs failing. When doctors finally operated, it was too late.

    In the weeks following the Dobbs decision, I could not forget the images of abortion bans immediately being signed into law across the country. I was disturbed when I noticed the pattern of who was in the room, singing these bills and banning our rights. Or moreover, who wasn’t in these rooms. Majority of these decision makers were men, men who not only were stripping me and every woman I love of our rights, but doing so with such little concern for the lives they so recklessly put at stake. I felt helpless. I was helpless. Plus, I immediately began to question where we go from here—and what role I would play in restoring abortion access to my friends, neighbors, and daughters. 

    The State of Georgia is culpable

    The same Georgia lawmakers – the same men – who were so eager to make abortion illegal, passed a law making a D&C procedure a felony with very few exceptions. This law directly led to Amber Nicole’s death. A D&C is a minor and routine procedure, but the law restricting it led to a little boy who now has to grow up without his mother. How can we expect that doctors will be able to provide the appropriate care when they are operating in a climate of fear of losing their careers? This fear is exactly what this law is designed to create – a chilling effect on medical care needed by women.

    Worst of all, Amber Nicole’s story isn’t unique. A woman named Candi Miller also died after being unable to seek care due to Georgia’s restrictive and controlling laws. How many more women’s stories are not being told in national news? How many more women are going to die because of a draconian law, put into place by Republican lawmakers who have no business acting as medical professionals? Additionally, how many women have already died? Amber and Candi’s deaths were preventable. Maternal health experts determined they were due to lack of access to safe abortion care, the same safe abortion care that was stolen from us. 

    Nobody is safe

    When Governor Kemp signed our state’s abortion ban into law, he said that ‘Georgia is a state that values life.’ And yet he has let many innocent women die because they needed medical care.  Georgia already has one of the worst maternal mortality rates in the country. Black women are three times more likely to die during pregnancy than their White counterparts. In the post-Roe world, Georgia’s maternal mortality rate is increasing, rising by 40% for women of color. 

    This is not about valuing life, this is about controlling women and denying us our privacy, dignity, and freedom. One of my strongest memories from law school is learning about the steady progression of individual rights secured in America. What alarms me is this rolling back of rights. We are witnessing the roll back of our nation’s agreement that we are all entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 

    In this climate, no rights, and no body is safe. Amber Nicole should be alive. Candi Miller should be alive. Pregnancy should never result in otherwise preventable death – women exercising bodily autonomy should not result in death.

    I decided to run for office because I needed to speak up.

    I cannot tell my daughter that her brother can make his own health care decisions, but she can’t. Also, I cannot allow my daughters to feel violated by their lack of bodily autonomy within this state. Lastly, I certainly cannot sit by and watch my daughters continue to be in the same kind of danger they are in now. I cannot, and I will not.

    Debra Shigley is a lawyer, former reporter and mother of five. Shigley is currently a candidate for Georgia House District 47. The opinions expressed are her own.

    Opinion by Debra Shigley

    Source link

  • Oregon Doctor Testifies to U.S. Senate on Idaho’s Abortion Bans – KXL

    Oregon Doctor Testifies to U.S. Senate on Idaho’s Abortion Bans – KXL

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — Dr. Amelia Huntsberger testified to U. S. Senators,  “I currently live and work in Oregon, but previously practiced medicine in rural Idaho for more than a decade. I was on the advisory board of the Idaho Perinatal Project, that worked to advance the health of moms.”

    The board certified OB/GYN says she and many other doctors who serve mothers have had to move out of Idaho, and to states like Oregon and Washington, after the U. S. Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade.

    “Idaho enacted some of the strictest abortion restrictions in the country, without exceptions to allow doctors to act to preserve a pregnant patient’s health.  Not even to prevent harm to organs or fertility, unless an abortion is necessary to prevent death.   The lawmakers who created these bills knew it. The cruelty was built in.”

    She added, “Doctors in Idaho like me tried to raise awareness of the harm from the abortion bans. I naively thought that if people just understood the laws, they’d change them.  As a result of talking publicly about abortion, we began to fear for the safety of our family. Just over a year ago, we packed our things and moved to Oregon.”

    Oregon U.S. Senator Ron Wyden is the Chair of the Senate Finance Committee, which held a hearing about the impacts on women’s health.

    He said, “Women are miscarrying, suffering life threatening blood loss, losing their ability to bear future children.  They are dying because they were denied emergency medical care that they needed. Doctors are being targeted or forced to relocate to states where they can practice basic medicine.”

    Wyden described horrific scenes and agonizing choices.  “A woman may come into the emergency room with an ectopic pregnancy or bleeding out from a miscarriage.  Some states that have passed abortion bans into law claim that they contain exceptions for emergency care if a woman’s life is at risk. In reality, these exceptions, are forcing doctors to play lawyer and lawyers to play doctor.”

    Outside the hearing on the Capitol steps, Washington U. S. Senator Patty Murray said, “We should all refuse to accept a status quo in America where pregnant women are dying.”

     

     

     

    More about:

    Annette Newell

    Source link

  • Trump Says His Abortion Strategy Is “States’ Rights”—But Even He Doesn’t Follow It

    Trump Says His Abortion Strategy Is “States’ Rights”—But Even He Doesn’t Follow It

    This week, one Floridian—Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump—weighed in on how he might vote on the state’s abortion access ballot initiative come November.

    Florida’s near-total abortion ban went into effect at the beginning of May. The state, helmed by Governor Ron DeSantis, had replaced the 15-week ban with a six-week one, eliminating access before many people even know they’re pregnant.

    Now, a 2024 ballot measure is hoping to safeguard abortion access until about 24 weeks, or later if a medical professional deems the procedure necessary to save a patient’s life.

    The current ban, Trump said in an interview with NBC News on Thursday, is “too short.” When pressed on how he plans to vote on the ballot initiative, he responded, “I am going to be voting that we need more than six weeks.” “It has to be more time,” he said.

    The conservative backlash was swift.

    “If Donald Trump loses, today is the day he lost,” conservative commentator Erick Erickson posted to X, formerly Twitter. “The committed pro-life community could turn a blind eye, in part, to national abortion issues. But for Trump to weigh in on Florida as he did will be a bridge too far for too many.”

    “Trump had better count the cost of abandoning pro-life voters—quickly. That cost is going to be very high,” Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, wrote on social media. “Pro-life Christian voters are going to have to think clearly, honestly, and soberly about our challenge in this election—starting at the top of the ticket.”

    Lila Rose, who heads the prominent anti-abortion group Live Action, shared that she would “love to see him stop saying this nonsense about supporting abortion,” in a Politico piece published Thursday. “But unfortunately, that’s not the case.” “Perhaps,” she said, “he personally lacks principle on this issue.”

    Just one day after the first interview with NBC, Trump said he actually wouldn’t be voting for the Florida measure.

    “So I think six weeks, you need more time than six weeks. I’ve disagreed with that right from the early primaries when I heard about it, I disagreed with it,” Trump told Fox News. “At the same time, the Democrats are radical, because the nine months is just a ridiculous situation where you can do an abortion in the ninth month. … So I’ll be voting no for that reason,” he continued, echoing a common abortion myth.

    In 2021, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 93 percent of abortions occurred during the first trimester. Only about 1 percent were performed at 21 weeks—about five months—or more of gestation. These terminations often occur due to lack of health insurance or health complications for the pregnant person or the fetus.

    This day-to-day messaging on how states ought to handle who gets to have an abortion and when is just the latest strategy in Trump’s retelling of how he, and his administration, have decimated access to reproductive healthcare across the country. For three presidential campaigns, Trump has morphed his rhetoric around abortion to best serve his needs. During this latest run for office, Trump has been doubling down on how his stance has always been anchored in states’ rights.

    “People forget, fighting Roe v. Wade was, right from the beginning, all about bringing the Issue back to the States,” Trump posted to Truth Social in April. “It wasn’t about anything else,” he continued, “We had a Great Victory, it’s back in the States where it belongs, and where everyone wanted it. The States will be making the decision.”

    Katie Herchenroeder

    Source link

  • Abortion rights ballot measures to go before voters in Montana and Arizona

    Abortion rights ballot measures to go before voters in Montana and Arizona

    Voters in Arizona and Montana will be able to decide in November whether they want to protect the right to an abortion in their state constitutions.

    The Arizona Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a 200-word summary that abortion rights advocates used to collect signatures for a ballot measure is valid, clearing the way for the issue to remain on the ballot.

    The Arizona secretary of state’s office said last week it had certified 577,971 signatures – far above the required number that the coalition supporting the ballot measure had to submit in order to put the question before voters.  

    Montana Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen on Tuesday certified Montana’s constitutional initiative for the November ballot.

    Under both measures, abortions would be allowed until fetal viability – the point at which a fetus could survive outside the womb, typically around 24 weeks.

    In Arizona, there are some exceptions for post-viability abortions to save the mother’s life or to protect her physical or mental health. Montana’s measure allows later abortions if needed to protect the mother’s life or health.

    Montana’s initiative would enshrine in the constitution a 1999 state Supreme Court ruling that found the constitutional right to privacy includes the right of a patient to receive an abortion from a provider of their choice. Supporters sought to protect the right as Republican lawmakers passed bills to restrict abortion rights.

    Voters in more than a half-dozen states will be deciding abortion measures this fall.

    Democrats have made abortion rights a central message since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022 – and it is a key part of their efforts in this year’s elections.

    Seven states have already put abortion questions before voters since then — California, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, Ohio and Vermont — and in each case abortion supporters won.   

    “Since Roe was overturned, extreme anti-abortion politicians have used every trick in the book to take away our freedoms and ban abortion completely,” Martha Fuller, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Montana, said in a statement. “During that time, we have been working together to put this issue before voters.”

    Recent decisions from the Arizona Supreme Court come ahead of a Thursday ballot printing deadline. Montana’s ballot must be certified by Thursday.

    Arizona’s justices sided with Republican lawmakers in a separate case concerning the abortion ballot measure last week to allow a voter information pamphlet to refer to an embryo or fetus as an “unborn human being.” That language will not appear on the ballots.

    In the latest abortion measure case, Arizona Right to Life sued over the petition summary, arguing it was misleading.

    The high court justices rejected that argument, as well as the claim that the petition summary for the proposed amendment failed to mention it would overturn existing abortion laws if approved by voters. The court in its ruling states that “(r)easonable people” can differ over the best way to describe a key provision of a ballot measure, but a court should not entangle itself in those disputes.

    “Regardless of the ruling, we are looking forward to working with our pro-life partners across the state to continue to inform voters about this ambiguous language,” said Susan Haugland, spokesperson for Arizona Right to Life.

    Arizona for Abortion Access, which launched the initiative, said the ruling is a “huge win” and advocates will be working around the clock to encourage voters to support it.

    “We are confident that this fall, Arizona voters will make history by establishing a fundamental right to abortion in our state, once and for all,” the group said in a statement.

    Source link

  • Project 2025: The Blueprint for America’s Democratic Demise

    Project 2025: The Blueprint for America’s Democratic Demise

    Trump is “America’s Hitler.”

    Those aren’t my words. They’re the words of Donald Trump’s running mate, Sen. J.D. Vance. That’s what he and many others used to say about Trump before they succumbed to his influence. Now, they’re proclaiming their loyalty by bowing down and kissing the ring of an insurrection inciter, a racist, a sex predator, a twice-impeached, four-time indicted, now convicted felon, and former disgrace of a President.

    Recently, the Republicans held their national convention. Despite the delusional and deranged policies Trump has been shoving down our throats, he was met with thunderous applause.

    Let me paint a picture of a second Trump term, according to MAGA Republicans and Trump’s closest cronies.

    Journalist and historian Anne Applebaum aptly noted, “Often, for autocrats, the second time in power is worst.” That’s a chillingly accurate description of what we’d face with Trump, especially with the tyrannical policies in Project 2025.

    If you haven’t heard, Project 2025 is a 920-page blueprint for a second Trump term, straight out of a dystopian novel. It’s packed with the horrifying policies MAGA Republicans dream of imposing.

     It’s the MAGA Republicans’ plan to take control of this country and our lives.

    It demolishes checks and balances, tramples personal liberties, and outlines a Trump power grab ripped from a dictator’s playbook.

    Trump wants to fire up to 1 million people in the federal government and replace them with a bunch of extreme MAGA Republicans who would do Trump’s bidding instead of the American people and the Constitution.

    And let’s talk about your wallet because you can forget about that with Project 2025. MAGA Republicans want to increase taxes on the middle class, gut social security for young Americans, slash Medicare, let employers stop paying overtime, and more.

    They also aim to obliterate the Department of Education and eliminate the Head Start program. As a former Head Start educator and school principal, I find this vile and inexcusable.

    Project 2025 also wants students in public high schools to take a military entrance exam in an effort to draft them into the military. However, it leaves private school kids untouched.

    The cherry on top? They’re hell-bent on banning abortion and restricting access to birth control and Plan B. As someone who knew life before Roe v. Wade and almost died from a stillbirth, we simply cannot go back.

    Now, Trump knows this plan is insane and unpopular, and has recently tried to distance himself from Project 2025, claiming he knows nothing about it.

    But Project 2025 is crawling with former Trump officials and cabinet members.

    All MAGA Republicans are trying to do now is lie about Project 2025 so they can win the election and begin to implement this draconian plan—just like authoritarians in other countries did when trying to grab onto power. But we cannot ignore their true vile intentions.

    So, what’s next?

    Trump used his first term to destroy the guardrails of democracy, stack the courts with loyalists, and make the truth seem like “fake news.”

    So, while our democracy survived a first Trump term, it won’t survive a second one.

    Don’t take my word for it. Trump said he will become “a dictator on day one.” This isn’t just a scare tactic by Democrats; it’s simply what Trump has already told us will happen if he wins. So, believe him when he says he’ll be a dictator.

    There is simply too much at stake to focus on anything other than the choice we have in this election: democracy or dictatorship.

    I’m choosing democracy every day.  

    Congresswoman Frederica S. Wilson (FL-24)

    Source link

  • President Joe Biden proposes major reforms for Supreme Court

    President Joe Biden proposes major reforms for Supreme Court

    President Joe Biden is advocating for significant reforms to the United States Supreme Court, following a series of landmark decisions and controversies involving several justices and their spouses.In remarks from the LBJ Presidential Library on Monday, Biden said the court is being used to weaponize an extreme agenda, and, in recent years, extreme opinions have undermined long-established civil rights protections. “In 2022, the court overruled Roe v. Wade, and the right to choose that had been the law of the land for 50 years,” Biden said, “The following year the same court eviscerated affirmative action, which had been upheld and reaffirmed for nearly 50 years as well.”Under Biden’s proposal, each justice would be limited to one 18-year active term, with the current president appointing a new justice every two years. Biden is also asking for an enforceable code of ethics that would require justices to disclose gifts and to recuse themselves when they or their spouses have a conflict of interest. Finally, Biden is asking Congress to start work on a constitutional amendment limiting presidential immunity, stating that no former president is above the law. “We need these reforms to restore trust in the courts. To preserve the system of checks and balances that are vital to our democracy,” Biden said.Biden’s call comes as trust in the high court is dropping among Americans. A June poll from the Associated Press and the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that seven in 10 Americans think justices are influenced by ideology. Four in 10 say they have hardly any confidence in the people running the Supreme Court. “I think we’ll have a problem if we don’t do something about Supreme Court ethics,” said Alan Morrison, an Associate Dean at the George Washington University Law School.”It would be constitutional to do it by statute, but I do not think that’s a good idea,” Morrison went on to say. “If it’s done by statute, it can be undone by statute.” Accomplishing any reforms will prove challenging, with Republicans already pushing back on the plan. House Speaker Mike Johnson says the proposal would “tilt the balance of power,” and is “dead on arrival.””Democrats want to change the system that has guided our nation since its founding simply because they disagree with some of the court’s recent decisions,” Johnson said.The party split in Congress is not the only reason Morrison believes the plan is unlikely to move forward anytime soon. “That has to go through not only two-thirds of both Houses but also three-quarters of the states. It’ll be a long time coming,” Morrison said. Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito would be the first three justices who could potentially be affected by term limits.

    AUSTIN, Texas —

    President Joe Biden is advocating for significant reforms to the United States Supreme Court, following a series of landmark decisions and controversies involving several justices and their spouses.

    In remarks from the LBJ Presidential Library on Monday, Biden said the court is being used to weaponize an extreme agenda, and, in recent years, extreme opinions have undermined long-established civil rights protections.

    “In 2022, the court overruled Roe v. Wade, and the right to choose that had been the law of the land for 50 years,” Biden said, “The following year the same court eviscerated affirmative action, which had been upheld and reaffirmed for nearly 50 years as well.”

    Under Biden’s proposal, each justice would be limited to one 18-year active term, with the current president appointing a new justice every two years. Biden is also asking for an enforceable code of ethics that would require justices to disclose gifts and to recuse themselves when they or their spouses have a conflict of interest. Finally, Biden is asking Congress to start work on a constitutional amendment limiting presidential immunity, stating that no former president is above the law.

    “We need these reforms to restore trust in the courts. To preserve the system of checks and balances that are vital to our democracy,” Biden said.

    Biden’s call comes as trust in the high court is dropping among Americans. A June poll from the Associated Press and the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that seven in 10 Americans think justices are influenced by ideology. Four in 10 say they have hardly any confidence in the people running the Supreme Court.

    “I think we’ll have a problem if we don’t do something about Supreme Court ethics,” said Alan Morrison, an Associate Dean at the George Washington University Law School.

    “It would be constitutional to do it by statute, but I do not think that’s a good idea,” Morrison went on to say. “If it’s done by statute, it can be undone by statute.”

    Accomplishing any reforms will prove challenging, with Republicans already pushing back on the plan. House Speaker Mike Johnson says the proposal would “tilt the balance of power,” and is “dead on arrival.”

    “Democrats want to change the system that has guided our nation since its founding simply because they disagree with some of the court’s recent decisions,” Johnson said.

    The party split in Congress is not the only reason Morrison believes the plan is unlikely to move forward anytime soon.

    “That has to go through not only two-thirds of both Houses but also three-quarters of the states. It’ll be a long time coming,” Morrison said.

    Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito would be the first three justices who could potentially be affected by term limits.

    Source link

  • Senator J.D. Vance, Echoing Donald Trump, Is Claiming He’s Alright With Abortion Pills

    Senator J.D. Vance, Echoing Donald Trump, Is Claiming He’s Alright With Abortion Pills

    On NBC’s Meet the Press Sunday morning, Ohio Senator and vice presidential hopeful J.D. Vance said he supports access to the abortion pill mifepristone—echoing what Donald Trump said just over a week ago on the debate stage.

    “On the question of the abortion pill,” Vance began, “the Supreme Court made a decision in saying that the American people should have access to that medication, Donald Trump has supported that opinion, I support that opinion.”

    He was referring to the court’s recent rejection of an attempt to limit access to mifepristone—which is safer than both penicillin and Viagra. Their ruling still left open the possibility for future attacks on the medication, which accounted for 63 percent of all abortions in 2023 and has been a lifeline for pregnant people in states with strict bans.

    When asked by CNN debate moderator Dana Bash if he would block abortion medication, the former president said, “first of all, the Supreme Court just approved the abortion pill. And I agree with their decision to have done that, and I will not block it.” Earlier that week, Trump told a crowd of evangelicals, “You have to go with your heart. You have to also remember you have to get elected.”

    With the Republican National Convention kicking off on July 15 in Milwaukee, those on the right seem to be trying to get on the same page about how they should talk about abortion—which about 1 in 8 voters have said is the most important issue driving their vote.

    Vance’s response came after Meet the Press host Kristen Welker asked the senator about his position on Project 2025—a GOP playbook for how another four years of Trump should go. The project is organized by The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, and is made up of a coalition of other conservative organizations. Despite former Trump administration alums like housing secretary Ben Carson, White House trade adviser Peter Navarro, and director of the Office of Management and Budget Russ Vought being involved in Project 2025, the former president has attempted to distance himself from the playbook, claiming he has “no idea who is behind it.”

    “Abortion pills pose the single greatest threat to unborn children in a post-Roe world,” Project 2025’s “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise” reads. “Now that the Supreme Court has acknowledged that the Constitution contains no right to an abortion,” it continues, “the FDA is ethically and legally obliged to revisit and withdraw its initial approval.”

    “The Heritage Foundation does a lot of good work. It does a lot of things that I disagree with, a lot of things that I agree with,” Vance told Welker. “I guarantee there are things that Trump likes and dislikes about that 900-page document,” he continued, referring to the mandate. “But he is the person who will determine the agenda into the next administration.”

    Vance said he hasn’t gotten the call from Trump asking him to officially run with him. “Most importantly, Kristen, we’re just trying to work to elect Donald Trump. Whoever the vice president is, he’s got a lot of good people he could choose from.”

    Previously, Vance has been vehement in his anti-abortion stances.

    In 2021, after the Texas legislature passed a near-total abortion ban, Vance heralded the move. “My view on this has been very clear,” he said, “it’s not whether a woman should be forced to bring a child to term” but “whether a child should be allowed to live even though the circumstances of that child’s birth are somehow inconvenient or a problem to society.”

    Katie Herchenroeder

    Source link

  • Vice President Kamala Harris stumps for abortion rights in Phoenix

    Vice President Kamala Harris stumps for abortion rights in Phoenix

    Marking two years since the Supreme Court struck down federal abortion rights, protesters marched on the court Monday, and Vice President Kamala Harris stumped in Phoenix to put a spotlight on the tussle over abortion in Arizona. “Our work right now is absolutely directly going to affect the people of Arizona, the people of our country, but will have an impact on people around the world…

    Mark Kubasko and Lauren De Young | Cronkite News

    Source link

  • Vice president holds College Park abortion rights rally with all the trappings of a campaign event – WTOP News

    Vice president holds College Park abortion rights rally with all the trappings of a campaign event – WTOP News

    At the Monday campaign event doubling as an abortion rights rally, supporters held hundreds of “Biden-Harris” or “reproductive freedom” signs.

    This article was republished with permission from WTOP’s news partners at Maryland Matters. Sign up for Maryland Matters’ free email subscription today.

    COLLEGE PARK, MARYLAND – JUNE 24: U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris delivers remarks on reproductive rights at Ritchie Coliseum on the campus of the University of Maryland on June 24, 2024 in College Park, Maryland. Harris is speaking on the two year anniversary of the Dobbs decision, the Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade and struck down federal abortion protections. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)(Getty Images/Kevin Dietsch)

    Vice President Kamala Harris (D)  stood in Ritchie Coliseum at the University of Maryland, College Park underneath a blue banner that said “Trust WOMEN” in large white text.

    Just underneath, in significantly smaller text, was a disclaimer: “Paid for by Biden for President.”

    At the Monday campaign event doubling as an abortion rights rally, supporters held hundreds of “Biden-Harris” or “reproductive freedom” signs. In the upcoming general election, Democrats insist their candidates, not Republicans, will ensure that Marylanders and voters across the United States have access to abortion care.

    Harris wasted little time, telling the enthusiastic crowd that a second presidency for Republican Donald Trump would pose a threat to reproductive rights across the country. The rally came on the second anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, which had guaranteed abortion access as a constitutional right for nearly 50 years.

    “Today, our daughters know fewer rights than their grandmothers. This is a health care crisis. And we all know who is to blame: Donald Trump,” Harris said.

    “He proudly takes credit for overturning Roe,” she said, noting that Trump appointed three justices who were key to reversing Roe. “My fellow Americans, in a court of law, that would be called an admission, and some would say a confession…. In the case of stealing reproductive freedom away from the women of America, Donald Trump is guilty.”

    The event also effectively functioned as a rally for Prince George’s County Executive Angela Alsobrooks (D) in her run against former Gov. Larry Hogan (R) to represent Maryland in the U.S. Senate.

    Harris gave a shout out to her “dear friend” Alsobrooks, whose Senate candidacy the vice president endorsed earlier this month.

    If successful, Alsobrooks would be the first Black woman to represent Maryland in the U.S. Senate, a glass ceiling that would echo Harris’s historic election as the first woman, the first Black American, and the first South Asian American to serve as vice president.

    The question of abortion is expected to have an outsized role in the campaign for Maryland’s Senate seat, which has become an unexpectedly tough race in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans by nearly 2-to-1.

    “Today is more than just an anniversary. It’s proof that we should never take for granted our liberties,” Alsobrooks said. “It is the confirmation that we must be vigilant in fighting for and protecting, with everything we have, our rights.”

    Alsobrooks took some jabs at her opponent, saying that Republicans hope Hogan is the key to securing a conservative majority in Congress.

    “They believe that Larry Hogan is the best opportunity that the Republicans have to get the 51st vote,” in the Senate, she said. “In fact, Donald Trump endorsed him because the two of them share something in common … they share the goal of handing the over the Senate to the Republican Party.”

    Trump has said in recent days that he believes the question of abortion restrictions should be left up to the states, a key part of the Dobbs decision. And Hogan, who has long said he is personally pro-life, has insisted that as senator he would defend Roe-style abortion protections.

    He reiterated that in a statement posted Monday on his campaign website in recognition of the second anniversary of Dobbs, saying that he would work in the Sentate “to codify Roe v. Wade, as the law of the land.”

    “A woman’s health care decisions are her own. Whether it be the decision to start a family with the help of IVF, or exercise her reproductive rights, nothing and no one—especially partisan politics—should come between a woman and her doctor,” according to the written statement.

    U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who spoke at Monday’s rally, went to bat for Alsobrooks and said that she would be the best choice to protect abortion access in the U.S. Senate. He ridiculed Hogan’s recent promises to support Roe-style abortion protections.

    “Her opponent Larry Hogan is undergoing some election year conversion like none I’ve ever seen,” Van Hollen said. “This guy now goes around saying that he’s quote, ‘pro-choice.’ The problem is he has a record that tells us the exact opposite.”

    Democrats, including Alsobrooks, have criticized Hogan’s claims on abortion rights, pointing to his previous actions as Maryland governor.

    Hogan vetoed a measure in 2022 that would have expanded abortion access in the state. When the legislature overrode his veto, Hogan withheld state funding to train nonphysicians to perform abortions, funding that Gov. Wes Moore (D) released on his first day in office in 2023.

    “So now we see Larry Hogan bobbing and weaving. Zigging and zagging. Flipping and flopping,” Van Hollen said. “And as we watch this, we know one thing’s for sure: Marylanders just cannot trust Larry Hogan with this one.”

    Hogan’s campaign — which released a video Monday criticizing Alsobrooks’ record on crime as county executive — pushed back on the characterization that he has “flipped” on supporting Roe v. Wade.

    “Governor Hogan protected choice in Maryland for eight years as Governor, funding access to abortion in the budget every year and being the first governor in America to provide over-the-counter birth control paid for by Medicaid,” according to an email from the campaign. “In the Senate, Governor Hogan will work to reinstate Roe v. Wade as the law of the land.”

    Maryland Matters is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Maryland Matters maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Steve Crane for questions: editor@marylandmatters.org. Follow Maryland Matters on Facebook and X.

    Kate Corliss

    Source link

  • Two Big Lies Trump Is Telling on Abortion

    Two Big Lies Trump Is Telling on Abortion

    Trump speaking to one of the many groups favoring him and a total ban on abortions everywhere.
    Photo: Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images

    There is no exercise more exhausting and probably futile than examining a Donald Trump speech or social-media post for lies, half-truths, and incoherent self-contradictions. But it’s important on occasion to highlight some very big whoppers he tells that are central to his political strategy. It’s well known that Trump’s own position on abortion policy has wandered all over the map, and it’s plausible to suggest his approach is entirely transactional. But now that he’s staked out a “states’ rights” position on abortion that is designed to take a losing issue off the table in the 2024 presidential election, he’s telling two very specific lies to justify his latest flip-flop.

    The first is his now-routine claim that “both sides” and even “legal scholars on both sides” of the abortion debate “agreed” that Roe v. Wade needed to be reversed, leaving abortion policy up to the states:

    This claim was the centerpiece of Trump’s April 9 statement setting out his position on abortion for the 2024 general election, as CNN noted:

    In a video statement on abortion policy he posted on social media Monday, Trump said: “I was proudly the person responsible for the ending of something that all legal scholars, both sides, wanted and, in fact, demanded be ended: Roe v. Wade. They wanted it ended.” Later in his statement, Trump said that since “we have abortion where everybody wanted it from a legal standpoint,” states are free to determine their own abortion laws.

    This is clearly and demonstrably false. The three “legal experts” on the Supreme Court who passionately dissented from the decision to reverse Roe are just the tip of the iceberg of anguish over the defiance of precedent and ideological reasoning underlying Justice Samuel Alito in the majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The Society of American Law Teachers immediately and definitively issued a “condemnation” of the Dobbs decision. When the case was being argued before the Supreme Court, the American Bar Association filed an amicus brief arguing the constitutional doctrine of stare decisis required that Roe be left in place. None of these views were novel. Back in 1989 when an earlier threat to abortion rights had emerged, 885 law professors signed onto a brief defending Roe.

    Sure, there was a tiny minority of “pro-choice, anti-Roe” liberals over the years who claimed resentment of the power of the unelected judges who decided Roe would eventually threaten abortion rights (not as much, it turns out, as the unelected judges that decided Dobbs). And yes, there have always been progressive critics (notably Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg) of the particular reasoning in the original Roe decision, but by no means have any of them (particularly Ginsburg) favored abandoning the federal constitutional right to abortion even if they supported a different constitutional basis for that right. So Trump’s claim is grossly nonfactual and is indeed not one that any self-respecting conservative fan of Dobbs would ever make.

    The second big lie that Trump has formulated to defend his latest states’-rights position is that he’s just supporting the age-old Republican stance on the subject, as he has just asserted at Truth Social:

    Sending this Issue back to the States was the Policy of the Republican Party and Conservatives for over 50 years, due to States’ Rights and 10th Amendment, and only happened because of the Justices I proudly Nominated and got Confirmed.

    Yes, of course a growing majority of Republicans have favored reversal of Roe as a way station to a nationwide ban on abortion, but not as an end in itself. The GOP first came out for a federal constitutional amendment to ban abortion from sea to shining sea in its 1980 party platform, and every single Republican presidential nominee since then has backed the idea. There have been disagreements as to whether such a constitutional amendment should include exceptions for pregnancies caused by rape or incest. But the last GOP presidential nominee to share Trump’s position that the states should be the final arbiter of abortion policy was Gerald R. Ford in 1976, as the New York Times reported at the time:

    [Ford] said that as President he must enforce the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that forbids states to ban abortions. But he has come out in favor of a constitutional amendment that would overturn that ruling and return to the states the option of drawing up their own abortion laws.

    Ronald Reagan, who challenged Ford’s nomination in 1976 and was already a proponent of a “pro-life” constitutional amendment, and the GOP formally adopted that position in 1980; four years later, it adopted its long-standing proposal that by constitutional amendment or by a judicial ruling the protection of fetal life under the 14th Amendment should be recognized and imposed on the country regardless of what states wanted. Anti-abortion leader Marjorie Dannenfelser noted this well-known history in a not-so-subtle rebuke to Trump’s revisionist history, as NBC News reported:

    “Since 1984, the GOP platform has affirmed that 14th Amendment protections apply to unborn babies and endorsed congressional action to clarify this fact through legislation,” Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said in a statement to NBC News. “Republicans led the charge to outlaw barbaric partial-birth abortions federally, and both chambers have voted multiple times to limit painful late-term abortion. The Senate voted on this most recently in 2020. In January 2023, House Republicans also voted to protect infants born alive during an abortion.”

    It’s pretty clear that anti-abortion activists know Trump is lying about both Roe v. Wade and the GOP tradition and will support him anyway. But the rest of us should take due notice that the once and perhaps future president’s word on this subject, including his current pledge to leave abortion policy to the states, cannot be trusted for even a moment. Absent the abolition of the Senate filibuster (which, lest we forget, Trump backed as president out of impatience with the Senate’s refusal to bend the knee to his every demand), there isn’t going to be a complete federal ban on abortion in the foreseeable future. But Trump can be counted on to use the powers of the presidency to make life miserable for women needing abortion services, among the many “enemies of the people” he wants to punish.


    See All



    Ed Kilgore

    Source link

  • During Tampa visit, Biden pins Florida’s six-week abortion ban on Trump

    During Tampa visit, Biden pins Florida’s six-week abortion ban on Trump

    Photo by Mitch Perry

    President Joe Biden at the Dale Mabry campus of Hillsborough Community College in Tampa on April 23, 2024

    President Joe Biden came to Tampa on Tuesday to speak about abortion rights, eight days before the state of Florida will enact a rigid ban on most abortions in the state after six weeks of pregnancy — though his main topic was former President Donald Trump.

    “Let’s be real clear, there’s one person responsible for this nightmare, and he acknowledges and brags about it — Donald Trump,” Biden said to boos from the crowd who gathered in a gymnasium on the Dale Mabry campus of Hillsborough Community College. “Well, now Trump says the law is ‘working the way that it’s supposed to.’”

    Biden continued the verbal assault on the former president and mocked Trump during one part of his speech.

    “He described the Dobbs decision as a miracle,” Biden said of Trump. “Maybe it comes from that Bible he’s trying to sell.”

    In fact, “Next week one of the nation’s most extreme anti-abortion law is going to take effect here in Florida,” Biden said. “It criminalizes reproductive healthcare before a woman even knows that they are pregnant,” he added, saying it will impact millions of women in the state.

    Biden then discussed the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court Dobbs decision which overturned the 1973 ruling legalizing a women’s federal right to abortion, and directly placed the blame for that major policy change to Trump, his likely opponent in a rematch of the 2020 election this November.

    Biden mentioned that abortion rights measures have been successful in both blue and red states across the country the past two years since Roe was overturned, and he predicted that Florida will do the same when it votes on its abortion rights measure this fall.

    “This November, you can add Florida to that list,” Biden said to loud cheers. “Are you ready to do that? You’ve gotta show up to vote.”

    “Don’t mess with the women of America!” Biden then declared to the loudest cheers of the afternoon.

    He repeatedly said in his brief speech (it lasted about 13 minutes) that the voters will hold Trump accountable for the U.S. Supreme Court justices who overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade court case.

    Biden also promised that if he was re-elected, he and Vice President Kamala Harris would make Roe v. Wade “the law of the land again.” However, such a law would need to get 60 votes in the U.S. Senate.

    The president’s visit to Florida is the first time he has come to the Sunshine State — formerly a swing state — this year, but the state has moved into red territory in recent years. Biden lost to Trump by 3.3 percentage points in 2020, and recent polls show the gap has increased between the two presumptive major party nominees this year.

    Trump leads Biden by 8 percentage points, according to a Florida Atlantic University Political Communication and Public Opinion Research Lab survey released last week. Trump leads Biden by 11 points in an Emerson College Polling survey released on April 11, and Trump leads Biden by 6 percentage points in an WMNF/St. Pete Polls survey released last month.

    Former Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn, a Democrat, says he believes that the issue of reproductive rights is so important that he believes some Republican voters would cross over and vote for Democratic candidates in November in Florida.

    “I think an attack on women’s rights by a presidential candidate will move significant numbers of women to the Democratic column,” he says. “That may be a one-time occurrence, but I think that in this particular case, what they have done is so egregious and so offensive to many women, that it’s enough to move them in this election, at this time, to vote for Joe Biden.”

    Florida Republicans disagree.

    “Floridians top issues are immigration, the economy and inflation, in all three areas Joe Biden has failed,” said Republican Party of Florida Chair Evan Power. “Instead of coming to talk to Floridians about manufactured issues, he should get to work solving the real issues that he has failed to lead on. We also welcome him to learn from the successes that has made Florida a beacon of freedom for the rest of the country.”

    “Any day that Joe Biden visits Florida is a great day for Florida Republicans,” said U.S. GOP Sen. Rick Scott in a statement. “Floridians are abandoning Joe Biden and the Democrats in droves because their disastrous policies are destroying our country.”

    Both Republicans noted the considerable lead that the GOP has over Democrats in registered voters, which now is at more than 892,000 as of March 31, according to Florida Division of Elections records.

    Biden took one shot at Scott in the speech, noting how former Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Mucarsel-Powell is likely to face Scott in November.

    “Debbie’s running against Rick Scott,” Biden said. “He wants to sunset Social Security. I think the voters are going to sunset Rick Scott.”

    Retired University of South Florida political science professor Susan MacManus says what Florida Democrats really need from the national Democratic Party and its associated political action committees is money to support down-the-ballot candidates.

    “Florida Democrats have made it clear that they need money, and part of the reason that they say they lost so badly in 2022 was that the money from the national Democratic deep pockets and coffers dried up and they weren’t able to do any kind of grassroots work,” she told the Phoenix on Monday.

    “What I’ve been saying is the winnable needs to include money to help Dems get back on their feet by winning some state legislative and congressional races, and him coming here is step number one to proving that it’s winnable, if he’s going to take his time and come here, but step two is follow up which is okay, we’re going to get some money into Florida and try to help the party because short of that, it’s just words,” MacManus added.

    Meanwhile Tuesday, there were organized protests regarding the president’s policies regarding the Israel-Hamas conflict, but they were positioned well outside of the footprint where Biden was speaking.

    According to a press pool report, on the way from the airport to the campus, there were people holding signs saying “Kennedy 2024” and another group holding a pro-Trump sign and one that said, “Biden Bad.”

    Florida Phoenix is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

    Subscribe to Orlando Weekly newsletters.

    Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | or sign up for our RSS Feed

    Michael Moline, Florida Phoenix

    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

  • Congress does not come back with a warrant

    Congress does not come back with a warrant

    In this week’s The Reason Roundtable, editors Matt Welch, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Nick Gillespie, and Peter Suderman contextualize Iran’s retaliatory strike against Israel before bemoaning the recent vote in Congress on the renewal of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

    02:20—Iran’s retaliatory strike on Israel

    13:05—House votes to reauthorize Section 702 of FISA.

    29:21—Weekly Listener Question

    42:00—Arizona Supreme Court rules on law that would ban nearly all abortions.

    47:23—This week’s cultural recommendations

    Mentioned in this podcast:

    “Iran Attacks Israel,” by Liz Wolfe

    “Biden Sends U.S. Forces To Protect Israel’s Borders for the First Time Ever,” by Matthew Petti

    “What’s the Root Cause of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict?” by Eli Lake and Jeremy Hammond

    “After Hamas Attack, There Are No Good Options in the Middle East,” by Matt Welch, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Nick Gillespie, and Peter Suderman

    “The Iranian Coup that Led to 67 Years of Reckless Intervention,” by Nick Gillespie

    “Come Back With a Warrant,” by Eric Boehm

    “Biden Hints at Freedom for Julian Assange,” by J.D. Tuccille

    “Edward Snowden: The Individual Is More Powerful Today Than Ever Before,” by Nick Gillespie

    “‘Selective Surveillance Outrage’ and ‘Situational Libertarianism’ Isn’t Good Enough, Congress!” by Nick Gillespie

    “Why We Get the Police State We Deserve—and What We Can Do to Fix That,” by Nick Gillespie

    “Supreme Court Says Officials Who Block Critics on Social Media Might Be Violating the First Amendment,” by Jacob Sullum

    “Everyone Agrees Government Is a Hot Mess. So Why Does It Keep Getting Bigger Anyway?” by Nick Gillespie

    “In Defense of Roe” by Nick Gillespie

    “Abortion & Libertarianism: Nick Gillespie, Ronald Bailey, Mollie Hemingway, & Katherine Mangu-Ward“

    “Trump’s Abortion Stance Is Convenient, but That Does Not Mean He’s Wrong,” by Jacob Sullum

    “What Leaving Abortion Up to the States Really Means,” by Elizabeth Nolan Brown

    “William F. Buckley, RIP,” by Jacob Sullum

    “Radical Squares,” by Nick Gillespie

    “FDR: A One-Man Show,” by Chris Elliott

    “The Big Guy’s Last Drink,” by Peter Suderman

    The Libertarian Moment, UFC300 edition (Renato Moicano invokes Mises)

    Send your questions to roundtable@reason.com. Be sure to include your social media handle and the correct pronunciation of your name.

    Today’s sponsor:

    • What’s the first thing you’d do if you had an extra hour in your day? A lot of us spend our lives wishing we had more time. The question is, time for what? If time was unlimited, how would you use it? The best way to squeeze that special thing into your schedule is to know what’s important to you, and make it a priority. Therapy can help you find what matters to you, so you can do more of it. If you’re thinking of starting therapy, give BetterHelp a try. It’s entirely online. Designed to be convenient, flexible, and suited to your schedule. Just fill out a brief questionnaire to get matched with a licensed therapist, and switch therapists any time for no additional charge. Learn to make time for what makes you happy, with BetterHelp. Visit BetterHelp.com/roundtable today to get 10 percent off your first month.

    Audio production by Ian Keyser

    Assistant production by Hunt Beaty

    Music: “Angeline,” by The Brothers Steve

    Matt Welch

    Source link