Abort3 Bak

8 26

trifecta

MERRI OK

see Two

merri ok

see pjt 2025 vought tony perkins alec

SEE TODD BLANCHE COMSTOCK CLARENCE ALITO HAWLEY CRUZ

see roe v wade 6/24/22

see paxton mofo texas

see raga team red

see fox BS

see privacy

SEE XIAN LEGAL SHOPS

see PILL MIFEPRISTONE

some neglect?

-=-=

MMA 8 26

Right-wing media liken Massachusetts law expanding abortion access to Satanism, murder, and “human sacrifice”

Women attending the signing of the law, which will allow more patients to receive care in the Bay State, were called “witches” and “shrieking harpies”

Written by Ben Van Bloem

Research contributions from Monica Rodriguez

Published 08/21/26

Right-wing media figures are melting down over a new Massachusetts law that will widen access to abortion in the state, claiming the law paves the way for “human sacrifice” and comparing the signing ceremony to “a coven of witches celebrating depravity."

In passing the law, Massachusetts joins Washington, D.C., and several other states that have moved to prioritize the judgment of medical professionals about pregnancy and abortion care rather than setting limits based on the length of the pregnancy. Right-wing figures, however, claim without evidence that this will legalize “post-birth abortion,” and that the law was enacted to make it easier to “sell the body parts” of aborted fetuses.

The law prioritizes the judgment of medical professionals, allowing more patients to receive care in-state

- Massachusetts removed gestation-based restrictions on abortions in order to “[give] doctors the final word” on abortions after 24 weeks. The law changed language restricting abortions on a specific timeline to read “an abortion may be performed by a physician based upon the professional judgment of the physician.” While most abortions are performed in the first trimester, abortions in the later stages “often involve situations in which doctors discovered a fetal anomaly late in pregnancy.” One supporter of the law was Kate Dineen, an abortion rights activist who could not receive care in Massachusetts and was forced to travel to Maryland for an abortion after her “son died in utero at 33 weeks.” [The 19th, 8/10/26; NBC Boston, 8/10/26; AP News, 7/31/26; Mass.gov, 8/10/26]

- Several major medical groups, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, championed the law, which Gov. Maura Healey’s office says will allow patients facing serious complications to “get medically appropriate care close to home.” A press release from the Massachusetts government noted that under the previous law “some Massachusetts patients were forced to leave the state to receive care” and that doctors had been limited to “a narrow list of statutory exceptions” when determining late-term pregnancy care options. The new framework allows doctors to “exercise their professional medical judgment in accordance with accepted standards of care.” This allows “greater clarity” for doctors who are caring for “patients with complex medical needs.” Lynn M. Yee, who is the vice chair of the Health Policy and Advocacy Committee at the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, argued that past laws “interfered” with the ability of providers to give “evidence-based care” to their patients. [The 19th, 8/10/26, Mass.gov, 8/10/26]

- A study looking at deaths during or within one year of pregnancy after Roe v. Wade was overturned “found a possible 9.2% increase in pregnancy-associated deaths in states with abortion bans.” One author of the study said that the findings “suggest many preventable deaths have occurred in states that banned abortion” and highlights that efforts to address the “maternal mortality crisis could be undermined by policies that restrict reproductive health care, including abortion.” [Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, 4/27/26]

Figures in right-wing media have linked the new law to Satan, “human sacrifice,” or otherwise evil influences

- The host of Mucho Que Decir Jorge Diaz Diaz argued that the Massachusetts abortion law is “intrinsically something diabolical” and suggested that Healey made a “pact with the devil.” He also suggested the law allowed for “human sacrifice” and that it was “satanic.” [La Nueva Poderosa, Mucho Que Decir, 8/14/26]

- Former Infowars host David Knight suggested that Democrats who support the bill would be yelling, “Hail Satan.” Knight said, “I imagine they've got some Democrats out there in the courtyard yelling, Hail Satan, like they did in Texas when there was the pushback by the protest by the abortionists there.” [Rumble, The David Knight Show, 8/12/26]

- Conservative podcaster Steven Crowder called the law “the evil of human sacrifice.” Crowder said, “I see the practice openly of evil, of human sacrifice, which is what we're seeing as far as abortion law in Massachusetts. … It's an entire room full of women celebrating the evil of human sacrifice and they know it.” [Rumble, Louder with Crowder, 8/12/26]

Right-wing media attacked the women and providers who championed the legislation

- On Newsmax’s Rob Schmitt Tonight, guest Abby Johnson said the signing ceremony looked “like a coven of witches celebrating depravity.” She went on to say that they were “celebrating the right to kill babies.” [Newsmax, Rob Schmitt Tonight, 8/12/26]

- Radio and podcast host Megyn Kelly called the video of the bill signing “disturbing” because “all these women are so grateful for the chance to kill their own unborn child.” [YouTube, The Megyn Kelly Show, 8/12/26]

- Steven Crowder said that the group of women at the signing was “a gaggle of evil women.” [Rumble, Louder with Crowder, 8/12/26]

- Host of the War Room podcast, Harrison Smith, called the women at the signing “shrieking harpies” who want to “murder babies.” Smith said, “Here's the governor signing the law, the lesbian governor signing it into law, surrounded by a bunch of shrieking harpies clapping and giggling at the fact that they can now literally murder babies.” [Rumble, War Room, 8/12/26]

- Daily Wire host Michael Knowles speculated that Healey’s Catholic faith was “fake” and called the women at the signing “witches.” Knowles said, “Big signing, this ghastly woman signing the bill, surrounded by all sorts of witches.” He went on to say that Healey’s “Catholicism is fake” and she “is in a state of grave mortal sin” before calling her an “infanticidal lesbian.” [YouTube, The Michael Knowles Show, 8/11/26]

- Newsmax host Rob Finnerty attacked the women at the signing as “truly sick” for “clapping for murder, clapping for killing babies.” [Newsmax, Finnerty, 8/11/26]

Other figures attacked the law by comparing abortion to infanticide and downplaying potential pregnancy risks

- Harrison Smith also claimed that the bill is not designed to care for “women's health” but instead is for people to “sell the body parts” of aborted fetuses. Smith said, “So, there are a couple things that are motivating this. None of them have to do with women's health. None of them have to do with freedom of association or freedom of choice or women's empowerment. They're as sickeningly evil as you can possibly imagine. The only one you could ever possibly justify in any way, however of a stretch it is, and like I'm saying this to make a point, is you can sell the body parts. You can sell the body parts. So a liver or an arm or a leg or an eyeball from a baby that's nine months is going to be a lot more valuable than a fetus that's six months. So, if you let them gestate until they're basically human, then you've sort of found a workaround of the fact that it's illegal to sell human body parts from human beings.” [Rumble, War Room, 8/12/26]

- Megyn Kelly claimed that for “late term abortion … there are very few things that actually pose a threat to the life of the mother.” Kelly said, “Late term abortion in this country is actually not even controversial. Virtually everyone is against it. I mean it’s just only these loons would favor such a thing. And honestly, at that point in your pregnancy, there are very few things that actually pose a threat to the life of the mother. I mean, I think Lila Rose would tell you at that point, whatever happens, you would just give birth to the baby, they would do what they could to keep the baby alive. But the answer that far along in the pregnancy is not to kill the baby.” [YouTube, The Megyn Kelly Show, 8/12/26]

- While discussing the bill, Fox host Will Cain called abortion “infanticide” and asked what the difference was between a late term abortion and “killing a baby four weeks outside the womb?” His guest, executive director of Catholic Pro-Life Community Cynthia Schmidt, responded that “there is no difference.” [Fox News, The Will Cain Show, 8/11/26; Catholic Pro-Life Community, accessed 8/13/26]

- Conservative media personality and Univista TV host Sanchez Grass claimed Massachusetts is “ready to kill as many babies as necessary.” He said in full that Healey “wants to ensure that women can continue to have abortions freely, no matter how far along they are in their pregnancies. In other words, come to Massachusetts, here, by law, we’re ready to kill as many babies as necessary.” [Univista TV, Sanchez Grass En America, 8/13/26]

- Voz News panelist Alfonso Aguilar claimed abortion is “murder.” He also suggested such legislation “does justify considering whether some effort should be made at the federal level to at least ban abortion after 15 or 20 weeks.” [VOZ Media, Voz News, 8/11/26]

- Scott Jennings said that Democrats had “pushed abortion extremism to its logical and horrifying conclusion.” He added that this “opens the door to ending the life of a healthy, viable baby right up until the moment of birth.” [YouTube, The Scott Jennings Show, 8/11/26]

-=-=

AN 8 26

Kansas State Rep. Pat Proctor, a Republican running for Kansas Secretary of State, lamented just how annoyed he is with female voters.

In a video revealed by his opponent, Jennifer Day, Proctor complained about the 2022 defeat of a ballot measure restricting reproductive freedom in the state.

"There's like, all these, like, women, uh, like 20 to 30-year-old women, who, you know, that you never saw at the polls before, and it's like a long line, the long line, and they're all there to vote," Proctor said.

"And it's just the — they're stealing it fair and square," Proctor said about the female voters, acknowledging that they were all legal voters. "And they all came back out, cause I can see 'em. You know, you had 700 unaffiliated female voters, 20-30, that all came out just to circle, in one circle because it was the only question on the ballot."

Procter made the statement while drawing a "circle" with his hand.

"And they all came back out for the general to vote again," said Proctor about the young female voters.

As of the last count on the Secretary of State's website, there are 575,983 unaffiliated voters in Kansas. Republican voter registration has slightly decreased in the state since January 2025, dropping by about 10,000 voters. A Kansas Reflector report noted that the vote over the ballot measure was "historic."

"Overall, Kansas women made up almost 56 percent of voters in the August 2022 election. And the younger the voters, the more women dominated. Voters between 18 and 24 years old were 61 percent female," the report said.

Retired researcher Earl F. Glynn pointed to a significant discrepancy in the gender of voters in Kansas using U.S. census data and reports after the 2022 election.

"A recent Kansas voter file with 1,975,884 voters shows 1,027,582 females, 937,011 males and 11,291 voters who did not select a gender," Glynn wrote. That math shows that there were 90,000 more female voters in Kansas than male voters.

Kansas' ballot measure is another among red states dealing with issues around reproductive freedom. In the 2024 election, seven states passed ballot measures to ensure access to reproductive healthcare, the State Court Report said after the 2024 election. Missouri affirmed access in that state in early 2026.

-=-=

8 26

Trump's AG pick is letting a a 111-year-old corpse dictate your rights

Thom HartmannAugust 06, 2026

Todd Blanche is campaigning to become our real, confirmed Attorney General, presumably so he can better help Donald Trump, his corrupt family, and the 13 billionaires in his cabinet make off with as much of our money as they can.

Most recently, his campaign took him to the rightwing “religious” group Intercessors for America. When he was asked about progress in totally ending legal abortion in America, or at least Red State America, he told them:

“We don’t have complete victory yet, but we will have victory, and victory will be soon, and and it will be permanent.”

He added, later in the call:

“If states have said, ‘We are going to protect the unborn and we’re going to protect every life from the moment of conception,’ we’re putting practices and policies in place so that other states and other organizations can’t attack that. They can’t do things like they’re doing with mailing in mail-order drugs.”

So, how’s he going to pull this off? His sworn testimony before Congress may offer us a glimpse into the plan.

Ted Cruz asked him:

“18 USC 24 Section 1461, the Comstock Act, provides that every article or thing designed or adapted or intended for producing abortion is declared to be non-mailable. I have to admit that statutory text to me looks quite straightforward. It is not subtle. It is not difficult. It is straightforward. …

“[W]ill you commit that the Department will carefully evaluate every lawful action available to ensure the faithful enforcement of the Comstock Act and other Federal pro-life acts?”

Blanche answered: “Yes.”

How does he plan to “protect every life from the moment of conception”? Apparently, with the Comstock Act. And he may well have the backing of the six Republicans on the Supreme Court as their next step after their Dobbs decision.

Back during oral arguments before the Supreme Court in March of 2024, the Comstock Act was invoked repeatedly by Sam Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Erin Hawley, the wife of Republican Senator Josh Hawley, who was the lawyer arguing before the Court that the abortion drug, Mifepristone, should be banned nationwide.

Justice Sam Alito said:

“This [Comstock Act] is a prominent provision. It’s not some obscure subsection of a complicated, obscure law. Everybody in this field knew about it.”

Erin Hawley was emphatic:

“We don’t think that there’s any case of this court that empowers FDA to ignore other federal law. The Comstock Act says that drugs should not be mailed … either through the mail or through common carriers.”

And Clarence Thomas laid out the possibility of future litigation when he essentially threatened the lawyer for Danco Laboratories, the manufacturer of Mifepristone:

“How do you respond to an argument that mailing your product and advertising it would violate the Comstock Act?” He went on to note that the law “is fairly broad, and it specifically covers drugs such as yours.”

In other words, they want the Act enforced today.

So, what the heck is the Comstock Act and why are Republicans trying to revive it before the Supreme Court and in threatening letters to pharmacy chains?

You’ve probably never heard of Anthony Comstock, a Civil War Union soldier and New York Postmaster, who died in 1915. You need to learn about him and his legacy, however, as his long fingers are about to reach up out of the grave and wrap themselves around the necks of every American woman of childbearing years.

Anthony Comstock was a mama’s boy who hated sex. His mother died when he was 10 years old and the shock apparently never left him; women who didn’t live up to her ideal were his open and declared enemies, as were pornography, masturbation, and abortion. He was so ignorant of sex and reproduction that he believed a visible human-like fetus developed “within seconds” of sexual intercourse.

Comstock spent decades scouring the country collecting hard-core pornography, which he enthusiastically shared with men in Congress, and harassing “loose women.” For example, when he visited a belly-dancing show (then a new craze) in Chicago at the Cairo Theatre during the World’s Fair of 1893, he demanded the show be shut down.

As Amy Sohn, who wrote a brilliant Comstock biography titled The Man Who Hated Women, noted:

“Despite national controversy and Comstock’s intervention, ultimately the only alteration made to the fair’s belly dancing was costuming: the dancers swapped their gauze blouses for thin woolen undershirts. The vice hunter had lost in Chicago. But he would not forget the dancers, and would have four of them arrested and fined when they came to New York that winter. New York, after all, was Comstockland.”

Comstock lobbied for and shepherded through Congress a law passed on March 3, 1873 titled “An Act for the Suppression of Trade in, and Circulation of, obscene Literature and Articles of immoral Use.” Today we refer to it as the Comstock Act.

It’s language with regard to abortion is not at all ambiguous:

“Every obscene, lewd, lascivious, indecent, filthy or vile article, matter, thing, device, or substance … designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use; and

“Every article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing which is advertised or described in a manner calculated to lead another to use or apply it for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral purpose; and

“Every written or printed card, letter, circular, book, pamphlet, advertisement, or notice of any kind giving information, directly or indirectly, where, or how, or from whom, or by what means any of such mentioned matters, articles, or things may be obtained or made, or where or by whom any act or operation of any kind for the procuring or producing of abortion will be done or performed, or how or by what means abortion may be produced, whether sealed or unsealed; and

“Every paper, writing, advertisement, or representation that any article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing may, or can, be used or applied for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral purpose; and

“Every description calculated to induce or incite a person to so use or apply any such article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing—

“Is declared to be nonmailable matter and shall not be conveyed in the mails or delivered from any post office or by any letter carrier.” (emphasis mine)

The penalty is also not ambiguous. Persons mailing information about abortion, or drugs or devices to produce an abortion:

“[S]hall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both, for the first such offense, and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, for each such offense thereafter.” (emphasis mine)

The Biden administration argued that the Comstock Act of 1873 was set aside almost a century ago.

And, indeed, in 1930, the Appeals Court for the Second Circuit ruled in Youngs Rubber Corp. v. C.I. Lee & Co that the law couldn’t apply to things sent through the mail that are legal, even if they were illegal at the time of the passage of the Comstock Act. (The case involved condoms manufactured by Youngs Rubber Company.)

“Such a construction,” the Court wrote, “would prevent mailing to or by a physician of any drug or mechanical device ‘adapted’ for contraceptive or abortifacient uses, although the physician desired to use or to prescribe it for proper medical purposes.”

The law has been amended by Congress four times (in 1955, 1958, 1971, and 1994), but the language above about abortion was never struck because legislators figured the 1930 appeals court’s ruling rendered it nugatory.

But don’t tell that to Trump’s appointee, Texas District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of Amarillo, who ruled in 2023 that Mifepristone was to be banned nationwide: he based a large part of his decision on the plain language of the Comstock Act.

Republican members of Congress agree, and want the Comstock Act enforced nationwide now. They think they don’t even need a ruling from the Supreme Court: they just need Todd Blanche to “enforce the law already on the books.”

In a letter sent to CVS (among other pharmacy chains), Mississippi Republican Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith and eight other Republican senators (Lankford, Daines, Braun, Rubio, Marshall, Risch, Crapo and Blackburn) wrote that the Biden interpretation (and that of Congress in 1955, 1958, 1971, and 1994) is wrong.

They explicitly asserted that the Comstock Act is still in effect and they want it enforced:

“We write to express our support and agreement with 21 [Republican] State Attorneys General,” they wrote “who have reminded you that Federal law in 18 U.S.C. 1461-1462 [the Comstock Act] criminalizes nationwide using the mail, or interstate shipment by any express company or common carrier, to send or receive any drug that is ‘designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion.’”

The 1930 court ruling that lawmakers and judges had, for over 90 years, believed only applied the Comstock Act to items that were illegal (like child porn), Senator Hide-Smith wrote:

“[D]oes not protect CVS or any other individual or entity from being prosecuted within the five-year statute of limitations for the illegal mailing or interstate shipment of abortion drugs … even for conduct that occurs today.”

Keep in mind, under the plain language of the Comstock Act this could also apply to birth control pills, IUDs, and other things used to prevent pregnancy. And, of course, pornography and “masturbation devices” like vibrators.

The lawyer for Republicans defending Kacsmaryk’s ruling, Erin Hawley, went so far as to assert before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that even physicians and pharmacies shouldn’t be able to receive Mifepristone or other drugs that could produce an abortion via the mail, FedEx, or UPS:

“What the Comstock law says is that it is improper to mail things that induce or cause abortions, which is precisely the action the FDA took in 2021 when it permitted the mailing of abortion drugs.”

If Hawley’s interpretation is enforced by Todd Blanche once he’s securely settled into his office with a vote by Republicans in the Senate, all abortions in the United States could be ended when drugs and suction and surgical devices designed specifically for the procedure can no longer be shipped to hospitals, clinics, or physicians’ offices.

This is no idle threat.

As Washington Post reporter Dan Diamond wrote for his Substack newsletter, anti-abortion activist Mark Lee Dickson, who’s helped several cities around the country put into law local versions of the Comstock Act, told him:

“If a future president were to enforce these federal statutes, then they could shut down every abortion facility in America.”

This is the specific goal of these mostly “Christian” religious fanatics: to completely outlaw all abortion and radically restrict access to birth control. And having Blanche start enforcing the law that’s already on the books, provoking a battle heading for the Supreme Court, is all it would take.

Such a case would, based on Blanche’s sworn testimony to the Senate, have Republicans, Clarence Thomas, and Sam Alito gleefully rubbing their hands in anticipation.

So, if you’re concerned about the future of abortion rights in America, it might be a good time to call your Senators — particularly if either is a Republican — and let them know your thoughts on Blanche’s nomination that’ll probably get a vote in the next two days.

-=-=

AN 5 26 VID]

A recent dissent from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has prompted two legal analysts to question just "how far gone" the infamous conservative is.

Last week when the Supreme Court temporarily upheld telehealth access to Mifepristone, a frequently used drug that can expel pregnancies and miscarriages.

Thomas wrote in his own dissent, disagreeing with the majority of the court, claiming that the 1873 Comstock Act blocks the mail delivery and telehealth prescriptions for the drug. The law, however, applied to "obscene" materials and was used to stop the mailing of adult photos, magazines and other items.

“I write separately to note that, as Louisiana argued below, it is a criminal offense to ship Mifepristone for use in abortions,” said Thomas. “The Comstock Act bans using ‘the mails’ to ship any ‘drug ... for producing abortion.’"

Those pharmaceutical companies, Thomas claimed, "cannot, in any legally relevant sense, be irreparably harmed by a court order that makes it more difficult for them to commit crimes."

He said that they should be "thrown in prison."

"Applicants, which are the makers of these drugs, are not entitled to a stay of an adverse court order based on lost profits from their criminal enterprise. They cannot in any legally relevant sense be irreparably harmed by a court order that makes it more difficult for them to commit crimes," Thomas continued.

Slate legal reporter Mark Joseph Stern spoke with "Balls and Strikes" deputy editor Madiba Dennie, who called the Thomas opinion "outrageous."

Stern wondered what Dennie made of Thomas "throwing down" and "making the Comstock act great again."

She keyed in on the claim that the companies are part of some "criminal enterprise" as if they were "some guy on the corner selling heroin."

"I'm just like, 'Okay, buddy.' Like it's like somebody's been watching too much crime TV," she quipped.

Dennie went on to say it was "really egregious and just really trying to legitimize what was once a fringe theory that the Comstock Act does apply here, that it is valid, that it's still good law and should be used to prosecute all so many people."

"It's truly something absurd. I think it just shows how far gone Clarence Thomas is," she continued. "The language is on another level."

Stern explained that the language comes from the "crazy far-right anti-abortion advocates."

"They have been saying for years that this is a criminal network and a criminal conspiracy, and Thomas is just like, 'Absolutely. I'm just going to copy-paste that stuff into the U.S. reports, right?'" Stern argued.

Dennie agreed, "I think you have seen this sort of trend for Thomas for a while. Like he always describes abortion as this really nefarious, like racist eugenics-like operation happening across the country. And yeah, he really sees the opportunity to sort of put that put that into into his dissent here and mix in some criminality for good measure."

Stern clarified that she wasn't being hyperbolic, that Thomas did describe it as a racist eugenics program in a previous opinion.

"So, this guy is not pretending to be a neutral judge in these cases. He is like, 'We must outlaw abortion and imprison everyone who participates in it, including quite possibly patients,'" Stern said.

RWW 5 26

Finally, Josh Haymes declares that "mass immigration is a result of mass apostasy": "I believe that our mass immigration is an invasion, it's a judgment from the Lord for our systematic destruction of 70 million unborn babies."

huh? mma SCOTUS ~?

Right-wing pundits are pressuring Trump to satisfy MAHA by restricting the abortion pill | Media Matters for America

3 26

RWW

02/09/2026

Kyle Mantyla

Miles Klee @ Wired: Turning Point USA’s Halftime Show Was Exactly What You’d Expect

“The All-American Halftime Show," born out of outrage over Bad Bunny’s Super Bowl performance, fell short of the hype. From Kid Rock’s poor lip synching to Erika Kirk being MIA, it was simply dull.

Ellen Ioanes @ The American Prospect: Board of Peace Is a Board of Profits

Corporate interests dominate the organization planning the reconstruction of Gaza.

Oriana González @ NOTUS: Republicans Want Nothing to Do With Conservative Efforts to Ban Gay Marriage

Trump has moved the Republican Party away from its decades-old opposition to same-sex marriage, and public support remains high.

Bryan Kaylor @ Public Witness: At National Prayer Breakfast, Hegseth Says US Soldiers Gain Salvation by Dying for ‘Christian Nation’

Pete Hegseth, who likes to call himself the “Secretary of War,” spoke after Trump to baptize the U.S. and especially its military. He did so by highlighting the worship services he’s been leading at the Pentagon. And he even suggested that soldiers can gain salvation by fighting for the United States.

Hafiz Rashid @ The New Republic: March for Life Attendees Are Getting Measles

It turns out the anti-abortion March for Life demonstration was a measles superspreader event.

Josh Kovensky @ Talking Points Memo: Trump DOJ Files 9/11-Era Charges Against Leftists Across the Country

Under Trump, the DOJ has changed how it brings terrorism cases, and is training them on the opposition.

HUH? AN 1 26

President Donald Trump and his administration have been hit with an onslaught of lawsuits since his return to the White House, but according Newsweek, on Friday they received some rare legal pushback from a conservative organization.

Per Newsweek's report, Judicial Watch, a conservative nonprofit, filed a lawsuit against the Department of Health and Human Services, alleging that the agency had failed to provide a timely response to its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. The group requested survey information pertaining to abortion-related research at a facility in Pittsburgh.

The request was initially submitted on May 30 of last year, and according to the filing, while it was acknowledged by HHS on the same day, the organization has not heard back about it since then. The nonprofit is looking to obtain "All documents and communications of officials in the Office of Extramural Research concerning the Final Research Performance Progress Report (FRPPR) for the GUDMAP program at the University of Pittsburgh (Project Number U24- DK110791-01)," as part of an investigation for fetal tissue research programs using federal funds.

"As of the date of this Complaint (Jan. 2, 2026), Defendant has failed to: (i) determine whether to comply with the request; (ii) notify Plaintiff of any such determination or the reasons therefor; (iii) advise Plaintiff of the right to appeal any adverse determination; or (iv) produce the requested records or otherwise demonstrate that the requested records are exempt from production," the lawsuit alleged.

Newsweek noted that this lawsuit is among many that the Trump administration has faced for its alleged failures to comply with FOIA requests in a timely manner. Judicial Watch, for example, also sued the Justice Department over allegations that its FOIA request for "records about the alleged transfer of fetal tissue" was not answered sufficiently.

“Americans have a right to know basic information about the taxpayer-funded abortion industrial complex," Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, said in a statement. "As long as the government continues to fund these gruesome projects, Judicial Watch will work to expose them.”

---}:

AN 12 25

Sources within the Trump White House are furious over GOP Sen. Josh Hawley's new anti-abortion political spending operation, according to a new report from Axios, suggesting that the Missouri lawmaker "learned nothing" from the results of the 2022 midterm elections and calling the move "asinine stupidity."

On Friday, Hawley and his wife, Erin Hawley, announced the formation of Love Live Initiative, a dark money group aimed at making political contributions to anti-abortion causes. The plan, so far, calls for spending on national TV ads and working to put a greater spotlight on anti-abortion ballot measures.

"We think that there needs to be a voice, strong voice, advocating for life, and not just in the narrow political sense, but also advocating culturally," Hawley told Axios last week.

On Monday, Axios published a follow-up report in which anonymous top advisers close to President Donald Trump expressed major frustration over Hawley's new group, criticizing the senator for not giving the White House a heads-up and for resurrecting an issue that could further harm the GOP heading into the 2026 midterms.

"Clearly, Senator Hawley and his political team learned nothing from the 2022 elections, when the SCOTUS abortion ruling [overturning Roe v. Wade] resuscitated the Democrats in the midterms," a top Trump adviser told the outlet.

Despite midterm races generally going poorly for the party in charge of the White House, the 2022 races bucked the historical trend considerably, with Democrats losing the House to the GOP by only a slim margin and actually gaining a seat in the Senate. This overperformance has largely been credited to voter outrage over the conservative Supreme Court majority overturning Roe v. Wade earlier in the year, prompting a renewed wave of anti-abortion laws in red states.

Since then, Republicans have largely backed off from anti-abortion messaging, viewing it as a losing issue for the party. The White House insiders speaking to Axios said that the GOP should be exclusively focused on economic issues for the 2026 races, and did not mince words about Hawley's decision to dig back into anti-abortion causes.

"[The economy] alone will be the driving force behind the next election," the adviser said. "Picking a fight on an issue like abortion in a midterm is the height of asinine stupidity."

White House sources also suggested to Axios that Hawley's new group is part of a broader plan to position himself as a candidate for the 2028 Republican presidential nomination, against presumed frontrunner, Vice President JD Vance.

RWW

Anti-Choice Activist Bradley Pierce Is Fine With Causing A Civil War To Abolish Abortion Bradley Pierce of the Foundation to Abolish Abortion says he would "absolutely" support abolishing abortion even if it leads to a civil war: "If that's what God chose to bring about from doing our duty before him, then that's up to him." 7 25

OMG AN 6 25 EDIT BD

Meanwhile, Republicans in some states like Virginia have introduced bills to track women’s menstrual cycles, something which Vice President JD Vance was a proponent of as recently as 2023.

MMA

TikTok’s search engine algorithm promotes anti-abortion propaganda}:

06/17/25

AN 5 25

When Republicans flipped the U.S. Senate in 2024 and Donald Trump narrowly defeated then-Vice President Kamala Harris in the presidential race, anti-abortion groups and far-right Christian nationalists were optimistic. Republicans now control the White House and both branches of Congress, and anti-abortion activists are hoping for abortion restrictions at the national level.

However, the GOP majorities in the Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives are small, and House Republicans in swing districts are worried about the 2026 midterms — especially with Trump having low approval ratings in countless polls only three and one-half months into his second presidency. Abortion was a bad issue for Republicans in the 2022 midterms, and Democratic strategists are hoping it will hurt the GOP in 2026 as well.

In an article published on May 7, Politico's Alice Miranda Ollstein examines Rolling Thunder — anti-abortion activists' game plan for Trump's second presidency.

"The nation's most influential anti-abortion groups have a new plan to roll back access to the procedure for millions of Americans in what they're calling the 'biggest opportunity for the pro-life movement' since toppling Roe v. Wade," Ollstein reports. "The effort, which the groups have privately named 'Rolling Thunder,' is the movement's first concerted attempt under the second Trump Administration to target abortion pills, and aims to convince the FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration), Congress and courts to crack down on their use."

IFrame Content

Ollstein adds, "While the Trump Administration paid little attention to the medication in its first months in office, and even filed a court brief to preserve access, the activists are counting on a report from the conservative think tank Ethics and Public Policy Center to light a fire under those in power."

Ollstein notes that the drug Mifepristone is "is a longtime target of conservative activists who consider it the primary driver of the increase in abortions since Roe's fall in 2022."

"The groups also hope to wield the report to pressure Congress to strip the remaining federal funding from Planned Parenthood — which they consider the country's best-known purveyor of the drugs — and give conservative legal groups fodder to prosecute doctors who prescribe the pills to patients who live in states with abortion bans," the Politico reporter explains. "Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley told Politico he plans to introduce legislation — inspired by the groups' report — that would restrict access to the pills and make it easier for patients who have taken them to sue the manufacturers, Danco and GenBioPro."

Ollstein adds, "(Hawley) is also joining the groups' pressure campaign on the FDA…. Planned Parenthood and other abortion-rights supporters are slamming the report as 'junk science' as they mount their own pressure campaign to save their funding — highlighting that the paper was released directly by the conservative think tank and not published in a medical journal where it would have been vetted by outside experts in the peer review process."

*Read the full Politico article at this link.

an 3 25

In an unprecedented move to funnel more public tax dollars toward groups that oppose abortion, Republican lawmakers in Missouri are advancing a plan to allow residents to donate to pregnancy resource centers instead of paying any state income taxes.

The proposal would establish a 100% tax credit, up from 70%, and a $50,000 annual cap per taxpayer. The result: Nearly all Missouri households — except those with the highest incomes — could fully satisfy their state tax bill by redirecting their payment from the state to pregnancy centers.

The move comes four months after Missouri voters reversed one of the nation’s strictest abortion bans, and just as clinics have begun performing the procedure again after overcoming Republican obstacles.

Supporters of the bill, which last month cleared a key legislative hurdle in the state House, say it gives taxpayers more control over where their tax dollars go and allows them to support organizations that help pregnant women and provide alternatives to abortion. Alissa Gross, CEO of Resource Health Services, which runs four pregnancy resource centers in the Kansas City area, told the committee in written testimony that tax credits have led to a surge in donations to her organization and that a 100% tax credit could bring in even more.

“Our ability to impact more men and women for life as well as build healthy families has been substantial,” she said.

Critics argue the state’s support for pregnancy resource centers, also known as crisis pregnancy centers, diverts tax revenue away from essential services such as health care and public education and becomes a funding stream for anti-abortion advocacy. They say many centers do little to actually help women; instead, they say they merely discourage women from getting abortions.

“A 70 percent tax credit with no cap was excessive. A 100 percent tax credit is absurd,” Katie Baylie, a lawyer and reproductive rights advocate based in the Kansas City area, wrote in testimony submitted to the committee. “It is an insult to Missourians that our lawmakers are spending time even considering this bill.”

Experts in tax policy and philanthropy said a dollar-for-dollar tax credit — for any purpose — is rare and could be much costlier for the state than intended, especially if pregnancy centers actively promote it.

see brain drain

an 3 25

Republican lawmakers across the United States are determined to force people who become pregnant to carry their pregnancies to term by passing abortion bans and "fetal personhood" laws, but a new report shows that in many states, they are choosing choosing restrictions on reproductive rights over their states' workforce.

"Workers are not willing to trade their health and autonomy for a paycheck," said Dr. Jamila K. Taylor, president and CEO of the Institute for Women's Policy Research (IWPR) as the group released a reportMonday on "brain drain" in states with abortion bans.

The group analyzed a survey of 10,000 adults by Morning Consult and found that 1 in 5 respondents who are planning to have children in the next decade has moved to a new state due to abortion restrictions, or knows someone who has.

Among people with advanced degrees, 14% have moved out-of-state because of anti-abortion laws or know someone who has.

Nancy Northrup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), which advised on the study, said the report showed that "reproductive healthcare is a personal issue and workplace imperative."

"For business leaders and policymakers, protecting reproductive rights isn't just the right thing to do—it's essential for talent and long-term economic stability," said Northrup.

The two groups said the study showed employees' demands for policymakers and workplaces in states that are hostile to abortion rights.

"Access to reproductive healthcare is a fundamental component of workplace equity, and businesses can no longer afford to ignore the impact of abortion restrictions on their workforce."

Fifty-seven percent of workers who plan to have children prioritize employers who offer reproductive healthcare benefits and 56% person think companies should actively engage with lawmakers to protect abortion rights.

In states with restrictive abortion laws, people broadly support family-friendly workplace policies, according to the report, including 83% of Mississippi residents who back paid sick leave; 56% of people in West Virginia who think employers should offer paid time off for fertility treatments; and 70% of people in Alabama who support paid leave for pregnancy-related healthcare.

"Access to reproductive healthcare is a fundamental component of workplace equity, and businesses can no longer afford to ignore the impact of abortion restrictions on their workforce," said Taylor. "Our report makes it clear that companies who fail to address these needs risk losing their competitive edge. To build a resilient workforce and thriving economy, it's up to corporate leaders and lawmakers to take decisive action and make reproductive health care a top priority."

Workers expect their employers to not only provide reproductive healthcare and family-friendly benefits, but also to "stand up for these rights at a policy level," the report reads.

"Companies can play a critical role in helping to shape more accessible state policies and creating an environment that respects and safeguards access to comprehensive reproductive healthcare," it continues.

The report suggests that with workers thinking of moving to new states to get away from anti-abortion laws, employers will likely be incentivized to help ensure their states safeguard "access to comprehensive reproductive healthcare."

"Most employees are deeply concerned about their ability to access healthcare services while building their families, and they expect their employers to take an active role in protecting them," reads the report. "Accepting that reality and then making decisions from there will enable companies to attract and retain talent and, by advocating to improve the reproductive landscape across the U.S., drive economic progress."

OMFG

AN 3 125

As Americans face the reality of President Donald Trump's second term and the mass firings, takeover of federal agencies by billionaire mogul Elon Musk, and looming trade war that have come with it, the direct democracy advocacy group Fairness Project warned of a "major attack" on voters' rights taking place at the state level across the country.

While many in the U.S. have been focused on the actions of the Trump administration, said the group in a Thursday statement, legislators in over 15 states have introduced more than 100 bills to stop citizen-led initiatives from being placed on ballots in upcoming elections—and to stop them from becoming law even if a majority of voters support the measures.

"We're sounding the alarm: Direct democracy is being threatened right under our noses," said Kelly Hall, executive director of the Fairness Project. "Ballot measures have been a lifeline to working people in red and purple states, allowing them to make change even when politicians fail to represent their interests. Legislators are trying to systematically take that power away."

The Fairness Project has supported dozens of successful ballot measure campaigns to expand healthcare access, raise minimum wages, and win paid time off policies for roughly 18 million people across the country.

The group was the biggest funder of abortion rights ballot measures in the last election cycle, working to ensure campaigners in Missouri and Arizona collected enough signatures to get questions about expanding abortion rights on ballots. Both ballot initiatives were approved by voters in November.

The Fairness Project was also involved in a 2023 campaign to stop a Republican-backed measure in Ohio that would have required a 60% supermajority to pass any future constitutional amendments.

In six of the states currently pushing attacks on ballot measures—Oklahoma, Arizona, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Idaho—Republicans are making similar attempts to raise the threshold for passing ballot measures from a simple majority to 60%.

If they succeed in passing the proposals, said the Fairness Project, the GOP will be "effectively enacting minority rule."

Lawmakers are also advancing bills that would apply onerous signature requirements to the ballot measure process.

In Florida, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis' proposed changes to ballot initiative laws include requiring individual voters to complete a petition in person at an election office or by mail in order to express support for a measure, instead of allowing sponsors to pay workers to collect signatures in public.

"They want to kill the process," Angelo Paparella, president of a group that has run several petition drives in the state, toldAxioslast month.

The Arkansas state Senate this month passed several bills regulating how citizen-led initiatives make it onto ballots, including one requiring canvassers to request a photo ID from signers; one requiring potential signers to read the ballot title of a petition or have it read aloud to them; and one requiring canvassers to file an affidavit certifying they complied with state law when collecting signatures.

"This is their playbook: When cowardly politicians know they can't win with voters on the issues, they try to change the rules of the game," Hall said Thursday.

Earlier this week, Mississippi voters once again lost out on the chance to place measures on statewide ballots, which was permitted in the state until the state Supreme Court struck down the ballot initiative process in 2021.

Lawmakers allowed a proposal to partially restore the process to die ahead of a legislative deadline.

"This means voters still have no direct way to propose new state laws, to change state laws, or to change the Constitution," reported Taylor Vance of Mississippi Today.

Hall said the Fairness Project will continue fighting attacks on representative direct democracy nationwide.

"Voters are paying attention to this widespread attack on their constitutional rights, and they're fighting back," said Hall. "Americans deserve leaders who respect our democracy."

RWW

02/24/2025

Kyle Mantyla

Julia Ornedo @ The Daily Beast: FBI Boss Taps Trump Sycophant Podcaster Dan Bongino as His No. 2

Newly installed FBI Director Kash Patel made a surprising choice for his No. 2 Sunday night: Dan Bongino, a MAGA podcaster and former Secret Service agent with no experience in the bureau.

David Edwards @ Raw Story: 'Cutesy time is over': Dan Bongino weeps after taking Trump's offer as FBI deputy director

Fringe right-wing conspiracy theorist Dan Bongino wiped away tears on one of his final broadcasts after accepting the job of FBI deputy director from President Donald Trump.

Jack Jenkins @ Religion News Service: Trump's pick to run White House Faith Office sparks theological turf war

Idaho pastor Doug Wilson referred to White-Cain as an 'erratic woman preacher who has been all over the map.'

Andrew Perez and Asawin Suebsaeng @ Rolling Stone: Kristi Noem Says $200 Million DHS Ad Campaign Thanking Trump Was His Idea

Trump’s Homeland Security Secretary said he instructed her to make ads that “thank me for closing the border.”

Kiera Butler @ Mother Jones: The Anti-Abortion Movement Is Splintering

Is the faction that wants the death penalty for women who terminate pregnancies winning?

Jessie Blaeser @ Politico: DOGE shared its receipts — and some of them don’t match

Elon Musk promised to deliver a “maximally transparent” government efficiency program. What he’s disclosed so far is a messy and inaccurate accounting of his group’s early work.

Justin Glawe @ Public Notice: Despite the hype, DOGE hasn't found a shred of fraud

A month into Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s much-hyped efforts to root out fraudulent and wasteful spending by government agencies, not a single instance of fraud or waste has been discovered.

REF

Kiera Butler

Senior Editor/ReporterBio

Earlier this month, Kristan Hawkins, head of the influential anti-abortion group Students for Life of America, told her 85,000 followers on X that a particularly militant faction of anti-abortion activists worried her more than pro-choice protesters. “The sad thing is the people I fear getting shot by, most of the time, aren’t crazy Leftists (most of them don’t have guns or how to use them, lol)…but ‘abolitionists,’” she posted. “Think about that.” The post appeared to be in response to allegations that Hawkins and other pro-life leaders had thwarted a recent bill in North Dakota that would have criminalized abortion.

Those accusations came from the group that Hawkins mentioned in her tweet: “abolitionists,” or activists who believe that abortion should be completely illegal with no exceptions. Since the Supreme Court ended federal protection for abortion access with its Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision in 2022, abolitionists have been pushing to criminalize abortion, with some of the most zealous arguing that the termination of a pregnancy should be considered a homicide and punished with the full force of the law.

Like their more mainstream pro-life counterparts, abolitionists often protest outside abortion clinics—but abolitionists also target other protesters who theoretically are on the same side. They reason that these other anti-abortion protesters are not sufficiently dedicated to eradicating abortion. “History will look back on ‘defund Planned Parenthood’ as the weakest demand in the face of a holocaust ever to exist,” reads one recent Instagram post from Abolitionists Rising, a group with nearly 49,000 followers. Some abolitionists have used violent rhetoric to advance their cause. NBC reported last year that in a 2023[PIX], abolitionist leader Jason Storms said, “Guns collecting dust on the shelves are not helping us.” Instead, he called for “peace through superior firepower.”

A group of extremists, many of whom were motivated by fervent religious convictions, abolitionists were once considered a fringe element in the anti-abortion movement, even doing more harm than good by attacking the very women the anti-abortion movement claimed to want to protect. In 2022, the New York Times referred to abortion abolitionists as “the outer edge of the anti-abortion movement.” Yet Hawkins’ tweet drew immediate blowback—and not just from the handful of explicitly abolition-focused anti-abortion groups. The outcry reflects a developing trend that Cynthia Soohoo, co-director of the Human Rights and Gender Justice Clinic at the City University of New York School of Law, has observed over the past several years.

“Emboldened by Dobbs and their own rhetoric, abortion abolitionists now are pushing for laws based on their extremist, minority position that prenatal life should be treated as people.”

“Emboldened by Dobbs and their own rhetoric, abortion abolitionists now are pushing for laws based on their extremist, minority position that prenatal life should be treated as people,” she wrote in an email to Mother Jones. This concept, called fetal personhood, is gaining traction in the anti-abortion movement. Increasingly, Soohoo said, these abolitionist crusaders are winning the sympathy of pro-life lawmakers who, in turn, are proposing laws asserting that “abortion should be treated like homicide, with no exceptions and severe criminal penalties, and IVF should be banned.”

Over the last few years, several prominent and more mainstream supporters of the anti-abortion movement have embraced abolitionist rhetoric. In a 2023[VID?]

of her podcast Relatable, conservative influencer Allie Beth Stuckey hosted Foundation to Abolish Abortion head Bradley Pierce, who argued that abortion should be considered murder. When Stuckey asked him whether he thought the death penalty should be considered for women who have abortions, he responded, “I think it should be on the table as something for the jury to consider.” The episode, titled “Is the Pro-Life Movement Fake?,” racked up 44,000 views on YouTube. Lila Rose, who leads the anti-abortion group Live Action, says she is pro-life, not abolitionist. Yet she declared on X last month to her 384,000 followers, “The pro-life movement will not settle for less than the abolition of abortion.”

One group that has been particularly vocal about its disdain for Hawkins is the TheoBros, a network of young, extremely online men who proudly call themselves Christian nationalists. For the TheoBros, Hawkins’ post was not only insufficiently pro-life, but also evidence of one of their long-held and frequently discussed beliefs: Women should not hold leadership positions or opine on political and social issues. “This is wicked slander against abolitionists,” posted TheoBro podcaster and Texas pastor Joel Webbon. “Remove this woman from public service.” In a subsequent post, he added, “Abortion will not end until feminism is utterly despised.” Another TheoBro, former Daily Wire reporter Ben Zeisloft, wrote: “She is a feminist. As you know, feminism is the main reason why abortion exists and persists. We need Christian men leading the fight against abortion, not feminist women.”

Charles Haywood, a shampoo magnate-turned-TheoBro who runs a shadowy network called the Society for American Civic Renewal, posted: “Abortion will go away when it is aggressively criminalized and results in social ostracism. That’s how men can ‘protect women and children’—by punishing the women who try to get abortions.” Smash Baals, an anonymous TheoBro X account with nearly 69,000 followers, posted, “If women couldn’t vote abortion would’ve never been legalized.”

For Erin Matson, CEO of the reproductive rights group Reproaction, the TheoBros’ reactions are part of a broader backlash against women in leadership roles in the anti-abortion movement. “There was this strategic effort to put more women at the front of these groups,” she said, “and there are men who want to get away from that because they see this as rightfully their turf.” In a since-deleted post on X, one of Hawkins’ critics wrote, “While she’s busy jet-setting and cosplaying as a baby-saving warrior, her husband is stuck at home playing both mom and dad.” In response, Hawkins wrote, “No civil conversation to be had with an asshole who posts this about me on their X.”

Activists and influencers are not the only champions of the abolitionist cause. Last year, Russell Vought, one of the main architects of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 conservative policy roadmap and now director of the Office of Management and Budget, said during a hidden-camera interview aired on CNN that he didn’t “believe in” allowing abortions for pregnancies that resulted from rape or incest or even for those that were necessary to save the life of the mother. As my colleague Sarah Szilagy has noted, Vice President JD Vance has advocated using medical records to investigate women who travel out of state to seek abortions.

The most effective arenas for abortion abolitionists are at the state level; in at least 17 states, they have worked with lawmakers to introduce bills that would treat abortion as homicide, according to the extremism watchdog group Political Research Associates. In 2023, the Colorado Times Recorder reported that abolitionist groups were urging supporters to run for local office. “You need one of them to carry this [abortion abolition resolution] because they’ve got to introduce it, or you can run for that and become part of your County Republican executive committee,” the Foundation to Abolish Abortion’s Pierce said at a 2023 rally in Kansas. Later that year, former Colorado state Rep. Dave Williams, who sponsored an abortion abolition bill, ran for and won the role of Colorado Republican Party chair. Other prominent abolitionist legislators include state Sen. Dusty Deevers (R-Okla.), Rep. David Eastman (R-Alaska), and Rep. Emory Dunahoo (R-Ga). In 2024, the Republican Party of Texas listed “abolish abortion in Texas” as one of its legislative priorities. Some states have moved to resurrect “zombie laws” that criminalize abortion; the Wisconsin state Supreme Court is in the process of deliberating over one such law from 1849.

As for President Donald Trump, his record on abortion abolition is mixed. In 2016, he said he thought there should be “some sort of punishment” for women who have abortions, though he later backtracked and suggested that the doctor performing the procedure was the one who should suffer. Last week, Trump drew strong criticism from abortion abolitionists when he vowed to protect access to in vitro fertilization. Because the procedure often results in extra embryos that are ultimately discarded, most anti-abortion activists oppose it, but abolitionists for whom the embryo is still a “person” are especially against it. On Wednesday on X, Abolitionists Rising called IVF “demonic,” saying, “It must be abolished, not regulated.” White nationalist activist Nick Fuentes said in a livestream Wednesday to his 126,000 followers on Rumble that although he himself was conceived through IVF, he believes that his parents committed a “great mortal sin.”

Meanwhile, Students for Life’s Hawkins has taken a comparatively moderate stance. “Shouldn’t a logical step for the Trump Administration be to regulate [IVF], at a minimum?” she asked on X. (IVF is already regulated in the United States.)

This tactic—adopting a more moderate position in order to seem reasonable by comparison—could be interpreted as similar to the one Hawkins used in her abolition tweet. Reproaction’s Matson said that by portraying abolitionists as radicals, Hawkins casts her “extreme position as somehow less extreme.” The criminalization of abortion remains broadly unpopular—16 percent of those surveyed in a Marist poll last year said they thought authorities should take legal action against women who have abortions. That’s likely why, in his hidden-camera CNN interview, Vought endorsed abortion criminalization. “I want to get to abolition,” he explained, “but [we’ve] also got to win elections.” Hawkins appears to be taking a different tack. The abolitionist pile-on against her on social media may have made it seem to outsiders that Hawkins was getting canceled, Matson said, but it “actually plays right into her hand.”

In a February 17 post on X, Hawkins explained that very strategy to her followers. “Remember this…successful & large social movements often develop a ‘right-wing’ of extremists,” she wrote. She noted as examples the Black Panthers of the civil rights movement, eco-terrorists in the environmental movement, and “‘abolitionists’ like John Brown” in the anti-slavery movement. “We aren’t fighting for our mere existence and free speech right (which would have been the case if Kamala Harris had won in November),” she wrote. “It means that our movement is moving forward and has great opportunities in the coming months.”

NOTE KARO SPOX SORTA ACKNOWLEDGES SYSTEMIC MISOGYNY EXISTS, BUT DOES NOT MATTER BC YOU CAN JUST WILL YOUR WAY TO SUCCESS

musk bolso chainsawCPAC

no lnx an

'You have been gaslit': CPAC oozes MAGA's 'male inequality' agenda

People react as U.S. President Donald Trump (not pictured) addresses the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) annual meeting in National Harbor, Maryland, U.S., February 22, 2025.

Matt Laslo February 23, 2025

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD — This just might be the year American men finally overcome centuries of political, cultural and marital oppression that have ravaged the gender and kept guys locked out of key policies, like the Violence Against Women Act.

That’s what one conservative vendor peddled at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference. And they’re not alone. The oft-repeated message being subtly driven into CPAC attendees – is that the era of male victimhood is over.

Culture wars are now king.

In years past, the conservative confab focused on fiscal responsibility and cutting federal spending. This year — even as Republicans in Congress and the White House debate trillions of dollars in budget cuts — leaders stoked gendered culture wars.

“Don't allow this broken culture to send you a message that you're a bad person because you're a man, because you like to tell a joke, because you like to have a beer with your friends or because you're competitive," Vice President J.D. Vance told CPAC attendees Thursday.

Eradicating diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, initiatives may have merely been a stepping stone. Conservatives have rallied behind a new, if antiquated, gospel of manhood as they work to turn back time and eviscerate what they call "wokeness" in real time.

At CPAC, this is truly a man’s world, or will be soon if the resurgent right succeeds.

“Male Inequality”

Masculinity is everywhere here at CPAC. It’s tangible, making this year’s conference feel more like an all-male retreat than the policy-focused escape the annual event was before President Donald Trump remade American conservatism in his image.

In these conservative confines, there’s no gender pay gap (even as statistics show women earn roughly 75 cents for each dollar a man makes). Women’s suffrage, practically speaking, is a fairy tale of a bygone era. While Bibles abound, the Book of Ruth and its strong, central female cast, is an afterthought (if a thought at all).

The real problem is “Male Inequality,” according to the newly launched Men’s Equality Network, or MEN.

‘Areas of Male Inequality’ — a pamphlet MEN are handing out at this year’s CPAC.

At CPAC, MEN seeks to drum up support for the hashtag #genderequalityformen, while also giving away free caps emblazoned with “Watchdog: Stop the gender agenda.”

MEN's tagline succinctly sums up the mission that drives the group: “assuring due process, fairness and equal opportunities for men.” And while they may only be a few weeks old, MEN has already attracted 18 partners, ranging from United Families International to the Child Custody Coalition.

The group is so new, it hasn't held its first meeting. But MEN soon plans to start hosting monthly training sessions with partner organizations, then storm the marble halls of Washington, demanding equality for men.

And MEN has allies in powerful places in Trump’s Washington.

"Our culture sends a message to young men that you should suppress every masculine urge, you should try to cast aside your family, you should try to suppress what makes you a young man in the first place," Vance opined from the CPAC main stage. He, like MEN, provided no evidence to support his contention.

While the group is surely easy to single out, it's far from alone in its drive to restore manhood to its properly patriarchal perch at CPAC but also throughout society.

"Go fu#% yourself Planned Parenthood”

Entering this year’s hall of vendors at CPAC, it’s seemingly impossible to miss the loud magenta “Go fu#% yourself Planned Parenthood” banner next to a cardboard cutout of President Trump.

Defund Planned Parenthood photo (Photo credit: Matt Laslo)

A few rows away, at first blush, the booth for "Date on the Right" seems dedicated to online romance for Republicans. But the material seems more focused on connecting hardline conservatives with their policy dreams.

Instead of promising long-term love, the group’s selling point feels more politically inclined than lifemate: “Dating for conservatives: only two genders – male and female allowed. No pronouns but male or female allowed.”

Other booths are dotted with free swag seeking to uproot political correctness — “I support free speech, not political correctness,” reads one sticker — through slogans like, “God, Guns and Girly Things” or “Woman: an adult human female.”

“We have an entire generation of young men who are smoking weed, watching porn, not getting married — not even pursuing women,” American Principles Project President Terry Schilling told CPAC attendees. “We have this thing called incels — involuntary celibates. It's terrible. And we can't become a great nation again — we can't make America great again — until our men are great again.” //TUCKER MAINSTREAM GRT?

“You’ve been gaslit to high heaven”

For attendees, conservatives are undeniably victims. The thousands gathered at CPAC are set on righting those past perceived wrongs.

“You’ve been gaslit to high heaven every time you picked up a newspaper in the United States,” conservative anchor Megyn Kelly told the crowd. “Every time you’ve turned on CNN. You’ve been lied to. You’ve been bullied — or seen others with lesser power — bullied by the media and the leftist Democrats. You have been a victim of overbearing and controlling leftists who think they are the final arbiters of what’s best for you and your life.”

While this may be MEN's year, conservative women aren’t going quietly.

CPAC may be a man’s world these days, despite all the powerful women in today’s GOP, like White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, who, at 27, is the youngest person to ever hold the prestigious role.

On the CPAC stage this week, former White House communications director Mercedes Schlapp — wife of CPAC chair Matt Schlapp who a sheriff wrote up earlier this month for allegedly groping a man — asked Leavitt about being a woman in Trump world.

"Look at the White House and look at the exceptional Cabinet President Trump has put together," Leavitt said. "While we don’t care about identity politics…the president has appointed Susie Wiles, our first female chief of staff in United States history; Brooke Rollins heading up as our secretary of agriculture — look across the entire Cabinet. There are incredible women — Linda McMahon, leading the Department of Education — the list goes on and on."

As for her advice to young women, Leavitt departed from her party’s new man-centric mantra.

"Stay strong, speak the truth and don’t let anybody tell you that you can’t achieve your dream, or you can’t get to that next step. Just believe in yourself, because there will be a lot of people who don’t believe in you, who cast doubt on you, who talk bad about you," Leavitt said. "Screw ‘em. It doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter." DEFIANCE FIGHT FIGHTFIGHT PWR OF POS THINKING

NOW READ: Whoever tries to tell you that Trump is Christian needs to look up this passage in the Bible

--==

//?

rww

02/20/2025

Kyle Mantyla

From the moment the Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that the right of same-sex couples to marry was guaranteed by the Constitution, right-wing anti-LGBTQ activists have insisted that the ruling is illegitimate and must be overturned. Their effort to bring that about kicked into high gear after President Donald Trump used his first term in office to fill the Supreme Court with far-right ideologues who subsequently overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.

For nearly a decade now, right-wing activists have been plotting to get cases before the Supreme Court that the court's right-wing justices can use to overturn its ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, and appearing on a World Prayer Network call Wednesday night, religious-right attorney Mat Staver declared that the time is now "ripe" for that to happen.

"There is no so-called constitutional right in the Constitution to same-sex marriage. That's ridiculous," Staver said. "Obergefell will be overturned. It's not an if, it's just a matter of when."

Video URL

Along the same lines, Christian nationalist Oklahoma state Sen. David Bullard appeared on "Jenna Ellis In The Morning" on Thursday to discuss a bill he has introduced to provide tax credits to married couples who have "natural" children.

This bill was written explicitly to exclude LGBTQ couples, which Bullard explained is designed to "push back on Obergefell."

"The reality is we have to push back on Obergefell," Bullard said. "If we wait too long on that Obergefell ruling to start actually sending things back up and challenging that stance that somehow we have to all get along and say that same-sex marriage is okay, it's going to be too late at some point for us to push back."

"So, really what we want to do is challenge that concept and see if we can get to Obergefell," Bullard added. "And I think that's kind of what we're pushing at all the way around the board with a bill like this is to actually go straight at Obergefell and say, 'No, the Constitution protects my right, my freedom of speech, my freedom of expression, my freedom of religion to disagree with same-sex marriage.' And we can do that by moving ourselves to a point where we create fairness amongst God's design for traditional marriage in bills kind of similar to what we're talking about here."

2 25 tpm

somne midwest? state wants to track pregnancies?!

--=

RWW

01/29/2025

Kyle Mantyla

Rep. Eric Burlison announced the introduction of the Life at Conception Act that will declare "that unborn children are 'persons' under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, allowing their right to life to be legally recognized and protected."
Wanda Alger seeks to quell concerns about President Donald Trump: "I do not believe that President Trump has deceived us all and is the long-awaited Antichrist, nor do I believe that he is setting the stage for The Beast to take over the world."
Stew Peters declares that the Holocaust is "a fairy tale" and that "Auschwitz is an emotional amusement park for gullible retards."
Ali Alexander says that Elon Musk gave a Nazi salute: "You can say it’s not a Nazi salute but you’ll never be able to say what it was which means… it was a Nazi salute."
Finally, far-right priest Calvin Robinson delivered the same salute at the National Pro-Life Summit, which was also attended by Rep. Robert Aderholt, Charlie Kirk, Kevin Roberts, Ben Carson, Seth Gruber, Kristen Hawkins, Abby Johnson, Kayleigh McEnany, and Matt Walsh.

alternet

It's not just social media that's giving violent white supremacists a pass

Thom Hartmann January 11, 2025

— The fossil fuel industry is apparently paying off Republicans — in a practice legalized by Republicans on the Supreme Court — to make sure Congress never passes legislation to hold them accountable for all the death and destruction they’ve caused by lying about climate change for the past 50 years. }:

Here, for example, are the biggest recipients of their largesse, according to OpenSecrets:

Romney, Mitt (R-UT) $8,291,262; Cornyn, John (R-TX) $4,678,062; Cruz, Ted (R-TX) $4,138,421; McConnell, Mitch (R-KY) $2,852,107; McCarthy, Kevin (R-CA) $2,581,832; Hutchison, Kay Bailey (R-TX) $2,332,021; Inhofe, James M (R-OK) $2,320,139; Pearce, Steve (R-NM) $2,236,714; Barton, Joe (R-TX) $2,211,987; Brady, Kevin (R-TX) $2,087,396; Scalise, Steve (R-LA) $1,847,013; Murkowski, Lisa (R-AK) $1,792,602.

If you haven’t yet noticed the trend, just check out the party affiliation of each…}:

— Convicted Felon Trump now has the “Scarlet F”: Our first felon President. There was a time that many of us remember when America — for all our faults, history, and stupid international meddling — was seen around the world as a beacon of morality and the staunchest defender of democratic values. Now, we’re the laughingstock — or the terror — of the developed world, since a grifting adjudicated sexual abuser, Putin lackey, and chronic liar is about to become president again. Alexander Hamilton warned us, but our media was far too busy fluffing Trump’s ego and sanewashing his BS to remind us that our first Secretary of the Treasury and the main author of the Federalist Papers wrote, in 1792:

“Those then, who resist a confirmation of public order, are the true Artificers of monarchy... When a man unprincipled in private life, desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper, possessed of considerable talents, having the advantage of military habits—despotic in his ordinary demeanour—known to have scoffed in private at the principles of liberty—when such a man is seen to mount the hobby horse of popularity—to join in the cry of danger to liberty—to take every opportunity of embarrassing the General Government & bringing it under suspicion—to flatter and fall in with all the non sense of the zealots of the day

It may justly be suspected that his object is to throw things into confusion that he may ‘ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.’” (Emphasis added)}:

And “directing the whirlwind” of racial hate, fear, and bigotry — as I regularly point out here on Hartmann Report— is exactly what Trump thinks he can do to reverse the Civil Rights movement and the New Deal (I’m skeptical he can pull it off). The Founders — and FDR and LBJ — must be rolling in their graves…

— It's not just social media that's giving violent white supremacists a pass... Without telling us, so far as I can tell, Bloomberg is reporting that the FBI (and the DHS more generally) stopped seriously monitoring and infiltrating violent white supremacist groups two years ago, around the time they were being trashed for such investigations by sedition-, Putin-, and Trump-loving Republicans in the House. The pressure seems to have worked.

“In 2022, DHS closed its Disinformation Governance Board, designed to offer best practices in countering viral conspiracies,” reports Bloomberg, adding that, “DHS also recently shuttered a unit that swept the internet for threatening materials in public posts, social media messages and online forums…”

Putin’s internet trolls, operating with huge budgets and the resources of the Russian state behind them, have since become a major force on the top social media sites, and both X and Meta are no longer suppressing their lies and attacks on democracy. Is it fossil fuel billionaires or social media billionaires who are the greatest threat to the future of world peace and democracy? Hard to choose…

— Greedy insurer interrupts cancer surgery in shocking mid-procedure call... Dr. Elisabeth Potter was in the middle of surgery on a breast cancer patient when a nurse ran into the operating theater to say that UnitedHealthcare was on the phone demanding to speak with her. She interrupted the surgery, leaving the unconscious patient whose chest was cut open on the table, to take the call. Here’s her story in her own words, as she told it on Instagram and later confirmed with Newsweek:

“So, I scrubbed out of my case and I called UnitedHealthcare, and the gentleman said he needed some information about her. Wanted to know her diagnosis and whether her inpatient stay should be justified. And I was like, ‘Do you understand this? She's asleep right now and she has breast cancer?’ And the gentleman said, ‘Actually, I don’t — that’s a different department that would know that information.’ And I was like, ‘Well, she does need to stay overnight tonight, and you have all the information with you because I got approval for this surgery, and I need to go back and be with my patient now.’ But, yeah, it’s out of control. Insurance is out of control. I have no other words.”

I can think of a few words: Parasitic, thief, malefic, heinous, flagitious, depraved, monstrous, mephistophelean, godless, loathsome, psychopathic, cruel, sadistic, maleficient, and vile for a start… Feel free to add your nouns or adjectives in the comments below.

— Indiana Republicans want to threaten rape victims with felonies if they try to get an abortion. Over at her brilliant “Abortion Every Day” substack newsletter, Jessica Valenti tells us that Indiana State Senator Mike Young has proposed legislation that would subject a woman in that state to 2.5 years in prison if she were to claim rape to get an abortion (about the only way to get an abortion in Indiana, unless your life is in danger) and then can’t subsequently prove to the satisfaction of the state’s GOP that she was actually raped.}:

The bill also makes it a crime to possess the abortion drug mifepristone, evoking the possibility of midnight raids with Indiana police kicking in the doors of women who Indiana Republicans think may have purchased the drug from an online telehealth physician. Freedumb!!}:

— Wondering why Trump is on a jeremiad against Panama? Some suggest his rant was timed to coincide with Jimmy Carter’s funeral to give rightwing media an excuse to trash Carter’s signing the Panama Canal Treaty that Nixon first started negotiating. But consider this story from Newsweek titled “Trump Organization Accused of Tax Evasion in Panama.” Just like the way he scammed New York State out of tax dollars (for which he was adjudicated and sentenced last year) his failed hotel in Panama hadn’t been paying its taxes either. Trump’s involved in a huge lawsuit down their right now, and some speculate that toppling the Panamanian government might work out well for his personal interests. Keep an eye on this one!

— James Carville suggests Jeff Bezos is trying to buy Trump via Melania. Amazon has just announced that they’re going to spend $40 million on a documentary about Melania Trump, who got her legal status in the US with a “genius visa” that’s typically reserved for the world’s top scientists and Nobel Prize winners (there are only around 3,000 issued every year). Carville, who was himself the subject of a recent Netflix documentary, implies that this number stinks of a payoff:

“This is something I’m going to claim some expertise in, the subject of documentaries because I’ve been the subject of two and I’ve been the subject of a recent one… You can produce a world class documentary for $2 million. I know it. You couldn’t spend $40 million on a documentary if you tried 10 times harder to do it, so where’s the money going? Well, we know where the money is going.”

Why? Well, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and 17 state attorneys general are suing Amazon for allegedly maintaining a monopoly through anticompetitive practices, and Bezos apparently hates unions and might want help stopping them in his warehouses…

— Crazy Alert! Greenlanders really hate Trump, so Don Jr. had to hire homeless people to make it look like somebody was welcoming him. Danish Radio (which once loaned me a studio for two weeks to do my show: great people!) is reporting that after having Greenlanders give him the finger in the airport and post “Yankee go home” on Facebook, Don Jr. had to hire a few local “homeless and socially disadvantaged” people to pretend to be Trump supporters for his recent stunt visiting that country. As one local, Tom Amtof of the town of Nuuk, told DR News: “All they have to do is put on a cap and be in the Trump staff’s videos. They are being bribed, and it is deeply distasteful.” Yeah, distasteful. Again, there are other words…

NOW READ: Trump and his minions attempt to make America small, stupid and mean

rww 12 24

the Christian Nationalist Plan To Use Environmental Regulations To Further Restrict Abortion Kristi Hamrick of Students For Life encourages Christian nationalist lawmakers to find ways to use environmental regulations to outlaw chemical abortion: "I don't want to drink your abortion."](https://www.peoplefor.org/rightwingwatch/christian-nationalist-plan-use-environmental-regulations-further-restrict-abortion)...

AN 12 24 PRO PUBL

In states with abortion bans, ProPublica has found, pregnant women have bled to death, succumbed to fatal infections and wound up in morgues with what medical examiners recorded were “products of conception” still in their bodies.

These are the very kinds of cases state maternal mortality review committees are supposed to delve into, determining why they happened and how to stop them from happening again.

But panels in states that have recently imposed strict bans on abortion have done little to uncover whether the laws are contributing to maternal deaths, including tracking delays in care for pregnancy complications and making these problems known, a ProPublica investigation shows.

In fact, we found that in a few states, political leaders who backed the bans have stood in the way of measuring their consequences.

They have dismissed committees, slowing down their work. They have weeded out members openly critical of abortion bans and supportive of transparency.

Texas has gone as far as to legally prohibit its committee from reviewing deaths that are considered abortion-related. This could include some miscarriage care, health officials told ProPublica.

In two deaths of Texas women that ProPublica investigated, Porsha Ngumezi and Josseli Barnica had already miscarried when they were given misoprostol to help complete the process. The committee does not review cases that involve that drug because it’s also used for abortions, said committee chair Dr. Carla Ortique: “If they received medication, if they received any procedure, we will not get those records.” Chris Van Deusen, the spokesperson at the Texas Department of State Health Services, would not say whether Ngumezi’s and Barnica’s deaths would be reviewed.

Other state committees have not made changes to systematically examine the role abortion bans are playing in maternal deaths, officials acknowledged, though some said they might note it as a contributing factor if it appears in the records. “If the committee discovers a trend that raises a particular concern, it could decide to include that information in its reports,” South Carolina officials said.

Some noted that they follow guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and that those recommendations don’t direct committees to consider abortion access or delays in abortion care. Indiana’s law directs committee members to determine whether the person who died had an abortion and whether that contributed to their death; it does not focus on delays in access to abortion care.

States can direct their committees to look at any important health issue; Texas’ panel added new questions to its process to help capture the role of the coronavirus pandemic in deaths, for example.

ProPublica asked governors in 15 states with strict abortion bans whether committees should examine the impact of the laws on maternal deaths; most did not respond. None directly answered the question or advocated for specific changes. (Read their responses here.)

“We’re not acting like we want to know the answer to this question. And that concerns me,” said Caitlin Myers, an economics researcher at Middlebury College who is studying the impact of abortion access on maternal health. “However you feel about the ethics of abortion, we should want to understand how these policies are affecting women’s health.”

Experts interviewed by ProPublica say state maternal mortality review committees are uniquely well-positioned to examine the impacts of abortion bans on maternal health. The panels are often made up of practicing OB-GYNs, cardiologists and nurses, and they can also include doulas, medical examiners and experts in mental health, substance abuse and domestic violence. They review summaries of medical records to determine whether deaths were preventable and to identify contributing factors. This allows researchers and government officials to see patterns and come up with ways to improve the country’s poor maternal health outcomes.

Committees are not systematically tracking an issue that came up throughout ProPublica’s reporting on deaths in states with abortion bans: delays and denials of procedures, like dilation and curettage, which are used to empty the uterus during miscarriages to avoid hemorrhage and infection. The procedures are also used for abortions, and doctors face prison time for violating restrictions. Women have died after they could not access these procedures, ProPublica found.

Nevaeh Crain, a teenager whose organs were failing, was made to wait 90 minutes for a second ultrasound to confirm fetal demise. Amber Thurman suffered for 20 hours while sepsis spread. And Barnica was subjected to serious infection risks for 40 hours while doctors monitored the fetal heartbeat until it stopped.

Studying such delays “needs to be a part of these kinds of reviews,” said Dr. Daniel Grossman, a leading reproductive health care researcher and professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California San Francisco.

Grossman has collected dozens of accounts from health care providers detailing substandard treatment and poor outcomes in states that banned abortion. But he and others recognize who is ultimately in charge of state maternal mortality review committees.

“I can’t imagine the states that passed restrictions saying, ‘Now we want to know if that caused any deaths,’” said Eugene Declercq, a professor at Boston University’s School of Public Health who serves on Massachusetts’ maternal mortality review committee. “The clinicians and the public health people might want to know, but the political leaders would be aghast.”

Even if they start to pursue such answers, states are years behind in reviewing deaths, ProPublica found in a survey of 18 states with the most restrictive abortion laws. Most have not finished reviewing deaths from 2022, the year most bans became effective after the Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion. Two states are still reviewing 2021 deaths. Three states — Florida, North Dakota and South Dakota — did not respond.

Reviews typically lag years behind deaths because of the time it takes state health department employees to learn of cases, track down records and wrestle them free from hospitals and doctors before they summarize and redact them for review. “We have one person in the entire state that has to collect all that data. Literally one,” said Dr. Stacie Geller, a founding member of Illinois’ committee. “I live in fear of her retiring.”

The CDC, which has pumped tens of millions of dollars into helping states establish these committees and standardizing their work, has tried to reduce the backlog by setting a goal for committees that receive funding to review cases within two years. However, there’s no way to compel states to do so, and not all have caught up.

Such lags matter more in places where there has been a seismic shift in abortion access, experts told ProPublica, because there isn’t a full understanding yet of the laws’ effect on maternal health care.

Marian Knight leads the United Kingdom’s maternal mortality review program, widely seen as the world’s best. She said if there were a major legal shift like this in her country, she and her colleagues would adapt to track the impact in close to real time. “I would be monitoring that in the same way as I did during COVID, where we were analyzing data weekly and feeding it in,” Knight said.

As of last month, only five states — Iowa, West Virginia, Indiana, Georgia and Tennessee — had finished reviewing cases from 2022, ProPublica found. None had yet published a report on its findings for that year.

Seven other states were still examining 2022 cases: Alabama, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Mississippi, Missouri, Arkansas and Louisiana.

Idaho, Texas and Kentucky had not yet started looking at cases from that year.

Even though North Dakota did not respond to ProPublica’s survey, reporters found that its committee, formed by state legislation in 2021, has never met to review cases, according to two members.

In some instances, state officials are responsible for delays.

Idaho disbanded its committee in summer 2023 after a conservative group argued it was unnecessary and attacked members for recommending that the state expand Medicaid for postpartum patients. The move froze the group’s work until last month, when a reconstituted, smaller committee met for the first time. Two members who had spoken out against the ban’s impacts on maternal health, and are suing the state over it, were not brought back onto the committee. The state is defending its anti-abortion laws; the Idaho Attorney General has said he “will not stop protecting life in Idaho.”

It is unclear how long Georgia’s reviews will be stalled after state officials dismissed its committee last month, citing a violation of confidentiality rules after ProPublica reported on internal documents in stories about two preventable deaths examined by the group. The Georgia Department of Public Health said in a letter about the dismissal that this would not result in any delays to the committee’s responsibilities.

In a move that confused maternal research experts, Texas’ committee said it would not review data from 2022 and 2023 and begin with reports from 2024 to get a more “contemporary” view of deaths. The committee has skipped years in the past to address gaps, and at its recent meeting, Ortique, the chair, said that the decision had “absolutely no nefarious intent.” The period it plans to skip includes two of the preventable deaths ProPublica reported.

Dr. Romy Ghosh, an OB-GYN in Austin, Texas, pleaded with the maternal mortality review committee at a public meeting this month to reconsider its decision to skip those years.

“There’s been a lot of fear in my patients. They wonder, can I save their life if something goes wrong?” she said. “I think that this information will tell us there’s either nothing to worry about or it will be damning.”

Between the decision to skip years and the legal prohibition against examining cases involving abortion-related care, it appears Texas will not review any of the three preventable deaths ProPublica identified.

There is a limit to how much committee members can push back against state leaders.

When Texas delayed publishing its maternal mortality report in 2022, an election year, then-committee member Nakeenya Wilson, a community advocate, spoke out, saying “withholding data that does not make us look good is dishonorably burying those women.”

The next session, Texas lawmakers passed a bill changing the requirements for the position that Wilson held, effectively removing her from the committee. State officials appointed Dr. Ingrid Skop, a Texas OB-GYN who is the vice president of a prominent anti-abortion organization.

Wilson said maternal mortality review committees must be free to speak candidly about patterns they see in maternal deaths and to release information in a timely fashion.

“If it’s not the committee, then who is it?” she said. “There has to be increased accountability.”

Audrey Dutton, Anna Maria Barry-Jester, Lizzie Presser and Amy Yurkanin contributed reporting.

an 12 24

texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed a lawsuit accusing a New York doctor of prescribing abortion drugs to a Texas resident in violation of state law.

This lawsuit is the first attempt to test what happens when state abortion laws are at odds with each other. New York has a shield law that protects providers from out-of-state investigations and prosecutions, which has served as implicit permission for a network of doctors to mail abortion pills into states that have banned the procedure.

Texas has vowed to pursue these cases regardless of those laws, and legal experts are divided on where the courts may land on this issue, which involves extraterritoriality, interstate commerce and other thorny legal questions last meaningfully addressed before the Civil War.

In this case, Paxton accuses Dr. Margaret Carpenter of mailing pills from New York to a 20-year-old woman in Collin County. The woman allegedly took the medication when she was nine weeks pregnant. When she began experiencing severe bleeding, the lawsuit says, she asked the man who impregnated her to take her to the hospital. He had not been aware she was pregnant or seeking an abortion, according to the filing.

The lawsuit does not say whether the woman successfully terminated her pregnancy or experienced any long-term medical complications. Mifepristone and misoprostol, the medications Carpenter is accused of sending, are more than 95% effective if taken before 10 weeks of pregnancy.

Paxton is asking a Collin County court to block Carpenter from violating Texas law, and order her to pay $100,000 for every violation of the state’s near-total abortion ban. Texas’ near-total abortion ban comes with up to life in prison, fines of at least $100,000 and the loss of a provider’s Texas medical license.

Carpenter is not licensed to practice in Texas, according to the complaint. She is the founder of the Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine, a national group that helps doctors in states with shield laws provide telemedicine consultations and abortion pills to patients in states that have banned abortions.

The group was founded after the overturn of Roe v. Wade by Carpenter, Dr. Linda Prine, and Julie Kay, a former ACLU lawyer who successfully argued the case that overturned Ireland’s abortion ban. They support doctors who want to become “shield providers” by advising them on licensure, data security, pharmacy contacts and legality.

Carpenter also works with AidAccess, an international medication abortion provider, and helped found Hey Jane, a telehealth abortion provider. Neither Carpenter nor Kay immediately responded to a request for comment.

This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune at https://www.texastribune.org/2024/12/13/texas-paxton-abortion-pill-mail-lawsuit/.

The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.

an 12 24

Missouri voters enshrined abortion rights. GOP lawmakers are already working to roll them back

one month after Missouri voters approved a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to abortion, Republican lawmakers in the deeply red state are already working to overturn it — or at least undermine it.

One measure would ask voters to amend the state constitution to define life as beginning at conception, declaring that embryos are people with rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The result would be to classify abortion as an unlawful killing.

Another proposal, aimed at repealing the abortion rights amendment, would ask voters to ban gender transition procedures for minors, tying the two issues together, despite the fact that the amendment did not address gender surgery and gender-affirming care for transgender children is already illegal in Missouri.

Other proposed amendments include stricter abortion limits, such as restricting access to cases of rape, incest, medical emergencies and fetal anomalies. These measures would impose additional requirements, such as mandating that rape survivors file police reports to obtain an abortion.

GOP lawmakers have also introduced a measure to raise the threshold for amending the state constitution through voter initiatives, which could make it harder to pass similar measures in the future.

The legislative moves follow the Nov. 5 election, in which the amendment to put abortion rights in the state constitution won by a 51.6%-48.4% margin. Starting Thursday, the right to abortion will be constitutionally guaranteed up to the point of fetal viability, while restrictions on post-viability abortions will remain in place.

In other states where voters approved abortion rights measures last month, there were no signs yet that lawmakers would also try to counter those measures.

Even before votes in Missouri had been counted, proponents of Amendment 3, as the measure was called, had anticipated that a victory would be met with efforts to somehow undercut abortion rights.

“These people will continue to rail against abortion,” said state Rep. Deb Lavender, a Democrat from the St. Louis suburbs.

Although Missouri already has a law recognizing life as beginning at conception, stating that unborn children have “protectable interests in life, health, and well-being,” the proposed constitutional amendment would go further. It would effectively elevate this principle to the state constitution and potentially complicate not only abortion rights but the legality of in vitro fertilization and the handling of embryos.

Several states have laws recognizing fetal personhood, but Missouri would be the second — after Alabama — to enshrine it in its constitution. That could create legal and ideological confusion or even conflicts, experts say.

“You could see voters saying, ‘I support a right to abortion,’ but also saying, ‘Life begins at conception,’ without understanding that you can’t have both of those things at the same time,” said Jamille Fields Allsbrook, a professor at St. Louis University School of Law and a former policy analyst for Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

The author of one of the personhood measures, Rep. Justin Sparks, a Republican from the St. Louis suburbs, said he was emboldened by the narrow margin of the abortion rights vote.

“A clear mandate has not been achieved,” he said. While the amendment had strong support in metro St. Louis and Kansas City and in the county that’s home to the University of Missouri, “the vast majority of the rest of the state voted in a different direction,” he added. “So I think it’s fair to again bring the question up.”

But state Sen. Tracy McCreery, a Democrat also from the St. Louis suburbs, noted that Sparks was going against the will of voters in the St. Louis area. “I find that even more disrespectful of the voters,” she said. “It wasn’t just voters that tend to vote Democratic that voted yes on Amendment 3. It was also Republican voters and independent voters, and I think that’s getting lost in this discussion.”

The measure to link abortion and transgender rights reflects the campaign before the election, when abortion opponents conflated these topics. Critics said this strategy seeks to distract from abortion rights, which had strong voter support, by capitalizing on voter discomfort with transgender issues.

While GOP lawmakers push these measures, the legal landscape around abortion in Missouri is already shifting. On Wednesday, a Jackson County Circuit Court heard arguments in a lawsuit brought by Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri that seeks to strike down Missouri’s near-total abortion ban and other laws that regulate abortion. The lawsuit followed the passage of Amendment 3. Planned Parenthood said if it wins in court it plans to resume abortion services in St. Louis, Kansas City and Columbia on Friday.

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has acknowledged that the amendment will legalize most abortions when it goes into effect, but he has said he intends to enforce remaining restrictions, such as a ban on abortions after fetal viability, a 72-hour waiting period and parental consent for minors.

Lawmakers are also pushing to raise the bar for passing constitutional amendments. Now, a simple majority is enough; that has allowed Missouri voters to bypass the legislature and pass progressive amendments that lawmakers oppose. A new bill would ask voters to pass a constitutional amendment requiring not just a statewide majority but also a majority of voters in five of the state’s eight congressional districts — a change critics argued would give disproportionate power to rural areas over urban voters. It would then be harder for voters to approve measures that don’t align with the priorities of the conservative politicians they tend to elect.

Earlier this year, a similar effort to make it harder to amend the constitution failed after Democrats in the Senate filibustered it.

Sparks criticized the Republican leadership in the General Assembly for allowing the failure, pointing to a Republican supermajority in both houses that could have passed the measure.

“We hold all the power,” Sparks said. “We hold all the procedural levers of power, and we can shut down debate in both houses any time, any day, for any bill we choose to.”

Florida shows how a higher threshold for voter initiatives might play out. In 2006, the state raised the bar for constitutional amendments to 60%. This year, a majority of voters — 57% — supported an abortion rights amendment, an even bigger margin than in Missouri, but not sufficient in Florida.

It’s not clear yet, though, whether any of the measures have enough support in Missouri’s General Assembly.

Lavender said that the campaign supporting abortion rights significantly outraised its opposition during the election. “It’s going to be difficult to overturn,” she said. “You’ll have the same money that supported it now going up against you.”

11 24 INITIATIVES PASSED IN ALL INCL RED STATES BUT ONLY 57% FLA

COMSTOCK ACT?! ARIZ 1864!

Wisconsin Supreme Court justices question enforcing 1849 law as an abortion ban

AN 11 24

an 11 24

Trump's transition team is actively rejecting a possible Department of Health and Human Services senior role contender, according to Politico.

CNN senior reporter Andy Kaczynski wrote via X, "wow: Donald Trump’s transition team has rejected a push to install a prominent Project 2025 author Roger Severino in a senior role at the Department of Health and Human Services over concerns that his strident anti-abortion views would prove too controversial."

Per Politico's report, "According to six people familiar with the situation, granted anonymity to discuss private conversations," some of Trump's team member "worried Severino’s nomination would further inflame fears among voters and moderate Republican lawmakers that Trump might widely restrict abortion access, distracting from the rest of the president-elect’s agenda, though they added that Trump officials remain open to appointing other anti-abortion officials at HHS."

The team's rejection of Severino comes as "anti-abortion groups had been lobbying" for the Trump ally, the report notes.

"Heritage was lobbying hard," a source told Politico.

However, "the internal feeling was that [Trump campaign manager Chris] LaCivita and that crew had spent a lot of political capital trying to kill Project 2025 and they didn’t want to do this because that would be going backwards."

*Politico's full report is available here

mma

How Fox News has been misinforming its viewers about abortion

Written by Jane Lee, Isabella Corrao & Helena Hind

Published 11/04/24 mma

In the months leading up to the first presidential election since Roe v. Wade was overturned, Fox News has ignored the positive public health impacts of Vice President Kamala Harris’ pro-choice policy proposals. The network has instead portrayed abortion as an insignificant issue in the election, accused Democrats of fearmongering that former President Donald Trump and Republicans want to restrict access to reproductive rights, and falsely claimed that Democrats want no restrictions on abortions to the point of allowing so-called “post-birth” abortions.

Candidate positions on abortion — and Fox News spin

Kamala Harris has advocated for pro-choice policies. The vice president has promised to codify protections for reproductive rights that were stripped after Roe v. Wade was overturned. Harris has also promised to end the Hyde Amendment, which restricts Medicare coverage for abortions. American Civil Liberties Union, [8/6/24; CBS, 10/29/24; Axios, 9/24/24]

- Fox News dismissed warnings about Trump and Republicans restricting reproductive rights, accusing Democrats of “trying to terrify women about abortion.”In the two years since Roe was overturned, 13 states have enacted abortion bans with few exceptions. Despite these so-called exceptions, patients have been denied lifesaving health care because doctors fear they will go to prison for providing abortion care, or because the medical issue is not expressed clearly within the bans. According to Dr. Suzanne Bell of the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University, maternal mortality rates are “in some cases twice as high in restrictive states as they are in supportive abortion states.” Abortion bans also limit care for those experiencing miscarriages and stillbirths. Fox News, *The Story with Martha MacCallum*, [10/23/24; The Fuller Project, 10/9/24; The Associated Press, 8/14/24; Johns Hopkins University; 5/19/23; KFF, 5/2/24]

- Fox News has claimed that abortion is not particularly important to voters. In the lead-up to the election, the network has consistently failed to report on the deadly effects of Roe v. Wade’s reversal or mention that the majority of registered voters disapprove of its reversal, instead choosing to downplay the issue. Fox notably used this strategy to the Republican Party’s detriment ahead of the 2022 midterm elections. University of Pennsylvania, [5/14/24; Media Matters, 10/17/24, 10/25/22]

- Fox News has claimed Trump does not support a national abortion ban – his record says otherwise.Trump pushed for anti-choice policies during his presidential term and campaign, and took credit for overturning Roe v. Wadethrough his appointment of three conservative Supreme Court justices. Furthermore, Trump is inextricably linked to Project 2025, which proposes that the next conservative administration should attack reproductive rights from several angles. NBC News, [4/8/24; CBS News, 10/29/24; Media Matters, 9/19/24, 9/26/24]

- Fox News has spent this election cycle baselessly fearmongering about abortion care. Network personalities have falsely claimed that Democrats support so-called “post-birth” abortion, which is considered infanticide and is illegal in all 50 states. Fox has focused their attacks on vice presidential nominee Tim Walz, falsely alleging that he supported abortion “up until the moment of birth and in some cases even after.” Media Matters, [8/6/24, 9/11/24; Politifact, 9/18/24; KFF, 2/21/24]

### Fox News has dismissed Democratic warnings about Trump and Republicans restricting access to reproductive rights

On The Five, co-host Greg Gutfeld claimed “a vote for or against Trump, from a woman, has no impact on the issue of abortion.” Fox News, *The Five*, [9/9/24]

* After co-host Jessica Tarlov criticized Trump for laughing about a Georgia woman who died after doctors delayed lifesaving treatment for abortion-related complications, Gutfeld responded, “He should've said, ‘It’s the Democrats have been lying about it, creating a completely false story.’” Fox News, *The Five*, [10/16/24; ProPublica, 9/16/24]

- After OutKick founder Clay Travis claimed the Harris campaign was “trying to terrify women about abortion,” citing a New York Times article, anchor Martha MacCallum claimed, “The number of abortions is higher now than it was when Roe v. Wade was overturned. You know, I don’t know how people feel about that, but it certainly, it has not become more limited in the country as a result.” The Times article quoted Dr. Alison Norris, chair of the group that published the analysis: “The data don’t tell us anything about people wanting abortions and not getting them.” Fox News, *The Story with Martha MacCallum*, [10/23/24; The New York Times, 10/22/24]

Fox News neglected to cover reporting about the deaths of two women in Texas who sought abortion care during medical emergencies. The network once again failed to inform its viewers of the fatal consequences of abortion bans at the state level. Media Matters, [11/4/24]|}:

- In a report about “Harris framing November's choice as a matter of life and death because of what she calls Trump’s abortion bans,” Fox correspondent Jacqui Heinrich said that “whether Thurman died because of Georgia law is disputed,” suggesting that doctors who delayed treatment were responsible. Heinrich’s report omits context that abortion bans are “not rooted in science” and “pit doctors’ fears of prosecution against their patients’ health needs,” according to medical experts quoted in ProPublica’s piece about Thurman’s death. Fox News, *Special Report with Bret Baier*, [10/25/24; ProPublica, 9/16/24]

### Fox News has claimed that abortion is not very important to voters

MacCallum downplayed the importance of abortion as a campaign issue while women impacted by the overturning of Roe spoke at the Democratic National Convention.The “straight news” anchor stated, “There are voters, Hispanic voters, Black voters, lots of voters out there who — for whom, this is not a good issue.” Fox News, *Fox News Democracy 2024 - The Democratic National Convention*, [8/19/24; Media Matters, 8/21/23]

The Five* co-host Jeanine Pirro argued that more women were concerned about the combined issues of economy and immigration than abortion: “When women talk about immigration, when you put the economy and immigration together, it beats abortion by 32 points.” Fox News, *The Five*, [10/16/24]

Denying that Trump supported a national abortion ban, co-host Ainsley Earhardt suggested that people in Alabama don’t want abortion rights, saying, “If you live in New York, you probably always get an abortion. If you live in Alabama, maybe not. I don't know, but it’s whatever you decide as the voter of the state.” Fox News, *Fox & Friends*, [10/22/24]|}:

### Fox News has claimed Donald Trump does not support a national abortion ban

After Kamala Harris mentioned a Trump-promised national abortion ban, MacCallum claimed that “there is no Trump abortion ban,” only an “overturn of Roe v. Wade at the Supreme Court.” Guest Jack Brewer, who said that Harris is “truly carrying a jezebel spirit,” commented that “it is sad to hear that she is manipulating so many people, saying that President Trump is representing something that he has clearly stated that he hasn’t represented.” Fox News, *The Story with Martha MacCallum*, [9/20/24]

- Fox host Sean Hannity argued that Donald Trump has “been very clear that the states ought to decide” abortion regulations.Hannity also referenced Ohio, a red state, that voted to support abortion rights: “That’s what moving Roe v. Wade back to the states actually represents.” He neglected to mention that Ohio was leading the nation in “in the greatest number of women affected by shortages and lack of access to maternity care in the United States.” Fox News, *Fox News Democracy 2024*, [10/1/24; Center for American Progress, 11/8/23]

- Reacting to Melania Trump coming out in support of pro-choice policies, Special Report anchor Bret Baier speculated that her statement “softens and maybe shores up” that Trump “wouldn't pass or sign a national abortion ban.” Fox News, *Special Report with Bret Baier*, [10/3/24]

- Host Harris Faulkner praised Trump’s responses on abortion at her Georgia Town Hall when he said, “A woman does have the right for her body, and then this is why I gave that right back to the states.” Fox News, *Outnumbered*, [10/16/24]

- Speaking with Fox News contributor Guy Benson, Earhardt said that Trump wanting to enact a national abortion ban “is a lie” because “he just wants to send abortion back to the states.”Fox News, *Fox & Friends*, [10/22/24]

### Fox News has spent this election cycle baselessly fearmongering about abortion care

After wildly mischaracterizing former Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam’s comments on third trimester abortions, Hannity claimed “months seven, eighth, and ninth — even people I know that are pro-choice, that would be infanticide.” Fox News, *Hannity*, [9/10/24; The Associated Press, 4/11/24]

- Co-host Brian Kilmeade falsely claimed that under Walz, Minnesota performed five “abortions” after birth. He continued, “It soon turned to the fact-checking on abortion, when it came to there’s no abortion after the ninth month, when, in fact, under Gov. Tim Walz, it happened at least five times in Minnesota.” Fox News,*Fox & Friends*, [9/11/24]

Fox News contributor Kellyanne Conway claimed that “Tim Walz himself allows babies that survive an abortion — it’s rare, but it happens — allows them to not have standard of care, warmth, food, water, liquids. You just have to let them ‘expire.’”She continued, “That’s not what pro-choice women say they mean when they call themselves pro-choice.” Fox News, *America’s Newsroom*, [9/13/24]|}:

- Earhardt claimed that Minnesota’s abortion law “says there are no exceptions. You can have an abortion all the way through.” She also complained that Kamala Harris wouldn’t answer, demanding, “What’s too extreme? Seven months, eight months, nine months?” Fox News, *Fox & Friends*, [10/25/24]

- Fox News contributor Marc Thiessen said the “Democratic orthodoxy” is “abortion on demand, taxpayer-funded, up until the moment of birth and in some cases even after.” “That is just a radical position,” he said. Fox News, *The Story with Martha MacCallum*, [10/28/24]

mma

Anti-abortion figures attack ProPublica stories about two women who died seeking care for their miscarriages under Texas’ abortion bans

Conservative media downplay role of Texas abortion bans, erroneously blaming the deaths on “substandard medical care”

Special ProgramsAbortion Rights & Reproductive Health

Written by Charis Hoard

Published 11/05/24 mma

Following recent ProPublica stories about the death of two women in Texas as they sought abortion care during medical emergencies, anti-abortion figures and groups are claiming the outlet is attempting to blame abortion bans for their deaths, defending the state’s anti-abortion laws, and arguing the two women were really “victims of medical malpractice aggravated by inaccurate and politically-motivated media reporting.”

## ProPublica reported on the deaths of two women seeking care for their miscarriages under Texas abortion laws

- ProPublica recently detailed two women in Texas who died as they sought abortion care during miscarriages after doctors delayed their treatments due to the state’s abortion bans. In September 2021, Josseli Barnica passed three days after a miscarriage from an infection; her husband told ProPublica the doctors told her that “they had to wait until there was no heartbeat. … It would be a crime to give her an abortion.” In October 2023, Nevaeh Crain also died from delayed medical intervention, having tested positive for sepsis but unable to receive care until an obstetrician would take multiple ultrasounds to “confirm fetal demise.” ProPublica, [10/30/24, 11/1/24]

- In May 2021, over a year before the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, Texas banned abortion care as early as six weeks into pregnancy; after Dobbs, Texas banned all abortions except to save a mother’s life. “Doctors who violate it can lose their medical licenses, face up to 99 years in prison or incur fines of at least $100,000,” NBC News wrote. As CBS News reported, “It's not unusual for hospitals to require physicians to consult with staff attorneys when treating complicated pregnancies,” including miscarriages. The Texas Tribune, [5/19/21; CBS News, 11/3/24; NBC News, 5/31/24]

- Over 100 OB-GYNs in Texas signed a letter urging elected state officials to change the anti-abortion laws that have “prevented them from providing lifesaving care,” citing the viral ProPublica articles.According to The Texas Tribune, “Doctors have said that confusion about what constitutes a life-threatening condition has changed the way they treat pregnant patients with complications. The Texas Medical Board has offered guidance on how to interpret the law’s medical exception, and the Texas Supreme Court has ruled that doctors don’t need to wait until there’s an imminent risk to the patient to intervene. But some physicians say the guidance is vague and that hospitals are navigating each situation on a case-by-case basis.” The Texas Tribune, [11/3/24]

## Anti-abortion figures claimed that Crain and Barnica were “victims of medical malpractice” and that ProPublica “has an agenda” against state abortion bans

- Live Action posted a piece about reporting on Crain’s death titled “ProPublica exploits another mother’s death by ‘substandard medical care’ in attempt to blame pro-life law.” According to the anti-abortion group, “ProPublica has been bypassing maternal health boards and seeking out experts of its own choosing, all with the goal of making it appear that pro-life laws are to blame,” claiming the outlet “turned largely to pro-abortion experts for commentary and is only reportedly seeking cases of potentially abortion-related maternal death in states with so-called ‘abortion bans.’” Live Action, [11/1/24]

- Live Action also claimed that Barnica’s “tragic story appears to be a heartbreaking and preventable case of medical malpractice.” The piece also claimed that ProPublica “has an agenda; they are looking for cases like this one, but only in pro-life states.” Live Action, [10/31/24]

- American Life League claimed, “Reading the details indicates Josseli Barnica didn't die because of Texas' abortion regulations. She died because physicians did nothing to deliver the baby.” Twitter/X, [10/30/24]

- In a statement pushing back on ProPublica’s reporting, the American Association of Pro-Life OBGYNs claimed that Barnica’s death “could have been prevented had her medical team been properly instructed.”AAPLOG also claimed: “Josseli was sent home only 8 hours after her delivery. This is not standard of care. If she had been kept in the hospital longer, it is likely that this complication could have been detected and appropriately treated.” Twitter/X, [10/30/24; 10/30/24]

- :{:{Secular Pro-Life}: claimed that Barnica died “from an infection after doctors waited until there was no fetal heartbeat before inducing labor.” The account wrote that reproductive justice activists “aren't interested only in making sure women receive actual medical care; they're interested in using alleged confusion to argue we cannot regulate abortion.”:{ Twitter/X,:(style="background-color:#ffbb16ff"):}: [10/31/24]}:

- An article published in Life News claimed that women like Crain and Barnica were “victims of medical malpractice aggravated by inaccurate and politically-motivated media reporting.”The article claimed that Texas’ anti-abortion laws “protect the mother as much as they protect the preborn baby” and that Crain’s and Barnica’s deaths are being used by media outlets to “advance an agenda even at the expense of women and babies.” LifeNews.com, [11/2/24]

- Texas Alliance for Life claimed the “Latest State Data … Refutes ProPublica’s Misinformation on Texas’ Pro-Life Laws,” adding, “The media has put pregnant women and their preborn children needlessly at risk by misrepresenting the law.” The group claimed that ProPublica “published misleading articles falsely attributing the tragic deaths” of Barnica and Crain to the state’s abortion bans and instead called for “the media to correct inaccuracies and commit to reporting the truth about Texas pro-life laws and their positive impact on women’s health.” Texas Alliance for Life, [11/1/24]

- Texas Alliance for Life said it “strongly refutes” ProPublica’s article about Barnica, claiming that the outlet is “attempting to place blame where it doesn’t belong.” Texas Alliance for Life communications director Amy O’Donnell: “Josseli's death was preventable, and Texas law allowed her physicians to exercise their reasonable medical judgment to perform a life-saving abortion before the threat to her life became imminent. … Our pro-life laws are saving both babies' and women's lives, and misinformation like ProPublica's article spreads dangerous lies that threaten the care women deserve.” Twitter/X, [10/31/24]

- Texas Alliance for Life Executive Director Joe Pojman claimed that Barnica’s death “had nothing to do with Texas abortion law.” Pojman also claimed that the goal of Texas’ anti-abortion laws are to “protect unborn babies from abortion while allowing treatment for miscarriage, for ectopic pregnancy, and allowing doctors to perform abortions to save women's lives.” Twitter/X, [11/1/24]

- In a press release responding to the report of Barnica’s death, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America claimed that “no pro-life laws prevent doctors from providing emergency care for expectant moms, they must intervene to save women’s lives.” The press release also attacked ProPublica’s reporting, writing: “Lies to women about their pregnancy care are at the root of this tragic case. The law is clear, but the media and abortion advocates have created confusion where there should be none.” SBA Pro-Life America, [10/30/24]

- In a thread attacking ProPublica’s reporting about Barnica’s death, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America also stated that “Texas’ pro-life law is not the reason for her death. Fearmongering and failure from doctors to act are.” Twitter/X, [10/30/24]

//1. ### Fox News ignored reporting about deaths under Texas’ abortion bans

11/04/24

### MAGA media are attacking ProPublica’s comprehensive account of the role Georgia’s six-week abortion ban played in a woman's death

09/19/24

### How Fox News has been misinforming its viewers about abortion

11/04/24

thom an 10 24

...

— Republican attorneys general go to court to demand more pregnant 15-year-olds. This story sounds too bizarre to be true, but Missouri Republican Attorney General Andrew Bailey, Kansas Republican Attorney General Kris Kobach, and Idaho Republican Attorney General Raúl Labrador have filed a lawsuit in federal court — presumably aiming for an eventual hearing before the Supreme Court — claiming that their states are being harmed, population-wise, by the availability of abortion drugs that can be shipped into their states by mail.

They want shipping Mifepristone outlawed nationwide. The proof of the harm, they say, is that they are not seeing enough pregnant teenagers. The lawsuit is explicit (page 190): “Defendants’ efforts enabling the remote dispensing of abortion drugs has caused abortions for women in Plaintiff States and decreased births in Plaintiff States. This is a sovereign injury to the State in itself. … When data is examined in a way that reflects sensitivity to expected birth rates, these estimates strikingly ‘do not show evidence of an increase in births to teenagers aged 15-19,’ even in states with long driving distances despite the fact that ‘women aged 15-19 … are more responsive to driving distances to abortion facilities than older women.’”

They then claim that this “proof” that availability of mailed abortion pills are causing the drop in pregnancies among girls 15-19 years old is an “injury” to their states because it lowers their potential population. This is getting wild, but wait until the Supreme Court authorizes Red states to begin monitoring the menstrual periods of fertile girls and women; Alabama Republican Senator Katie Britt has already introduced federal legislation requiring companies selling devices that track ovulation to report their results to state agencies or a federal database, including police agencies nationwide, so pregnancies can be caught and tracked. Republicans won’t be happy until every girl in America grows up the way Amy Coney Barrett did in her People of Praise Catholic cult where she was referred to as a “Handmaiden.”

— And now, to the delight of Republican lawmakers and police the US government has bought a tool that can track you by your cellphone to abortion clinics anywhere in the country. Locate X is a product from Babel Street which our government has been using since the Trump administration; it’s capable of tracking every cellphone in the country with remarkable location accuracy. The folks at 404 Media did a trial run of it focused on tracking people to and from abortion clinics, and the process was startlingly easy. When Ted Cruz, JD Vance, and the rest of the GOP forced-birth crowd again gain control of the federal government, get ready. They’re chomping at the bit…

mma 10 24 no twt

A federal court issued an order blocking Florida state officials and in particular Gov. Ron DeSantis' health secretary Joseph Ladapo, from threatening TV stations over ads in support of Amendment 4, the constitutional ballot referendum that seeks to repeal Florida's near-total abortion ban, reported constitutional attorney Adam Steinbaugh.

DeSantis' administration sent letters to TV stations threatening to prosecute their employees for airing the ad, citing an obscure "sanitary nuisance" law intended to apply to physical health hazards like improperly sealed septic tanks. Specifically, they argued that the law might falsely persuade women who are eligible for abortion under health exceptions from seeking care.

The court didn't buy the argument and called out the state for violating the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

"While Defendant Ladapo refuses to even agree with this simple fact, Plaintiff's political advertisement is political speech — speech at the core of the First Amendment," said the ruling. "The government cannot excuse its indirect censorship of political speech simply by declaring the disfavored speech 'false.'"

The ruling cited the conclusion of the Supreme Court in the 1945 case Thomas v. Collins: "The very purpose of the First Amendment is to foreclose public authority from assuming a guardianship of the public mind through regulating the press, speech, and religion."

"To keep it simple for the State of Florida: it's the First Amendment, stupid," the ruling continued.

This comes after a tough day of oral argument, in which U.S. District Judge Mark Walker appeared visibly exasperated with Florida attorneys' arguments that the prosecution threats against TV stations were legitimate.

Trump lied about Roe v. Wade's popularity at Fox's town hall. The network has long downplayed the impacts of the abortion ruling reversal.

10/17/24

Fox's Jeanine Pirro says if women were more “educated” about reproductive rights they wouldn’t care about Roe V. Wade

10/16/24 mma

NEW TERM

an 10 24

On the first day of its new term, the U.S. Supreme Court in an unsigned opinion upheld a lower court ruling that enforces Texas’ ban on certain emergency abortions. The Biden administration had sought to overturn the ban and enforce its policy requiring hospitals to perform the emergency, potentially life-saving procedures. The Court declined, allowing the Texas law, one of the strictest in the nation, to remain in effect.

The Biden administration had argued “that hospitals have to perform abortions in emergency situations under federal law. The administration pointed to the Supreme Court’s action in a similar case from Idaho earlier this year in which the justices narrowly allowed emergency abortions to resume while a lawsuit continues,” the Associated Press reports. “Doctors have said the [Texas] law remains dangerously vague after a medical board refused to specify exactly which conditions qualify for the exception.”

“Pregnancy terminations have long been part of medical treatment for patients with serious complications, as [a] way to to [sic] prevent sepsis, organ failure and other major problems,” the AP added. “But in Texas and other states with strict abortion bans, doctors and hospitals have said it is not clear whether those terminations could run afoul of abortion bans that carry the possibility of prison time.”

Critics are blasting Donald Trump, who has repeatedly bragged he killed Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that found a constitutional right to abortion. That ruling was overturned in 2022 by the Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision. Trump put on the Court three conservative justices after vowing to pick justices who would end Roe.

“Trump did this. These are his hand-picked justices,” charged former Fox News and CNBC contributor Julie Roginsky Monday morning after the Court’s ruling in the Texas case.

“Thanks to Trump overturning Roe, the Supreme Court just issued a ruling that woman bleeding out from a miscarriage or stroking out from pre-eclampsia can die on the ER table in Texas,” noted Democratic communications strategist Laura Chapin, adding: “Trump’s Republican Party wants women to die.”

“Trump’s Supreme Court just signed a death warrant for more Texas women,” warned Dem Socratic strategistAdam Parkhomenko.

Leigh McGowan, who runs the popular PoliticsGirl podcast, wrote: “SCOTUS confirms it’s the state’s right to let women die.

Neera Tanden, Director of the White House Domestic Policy Council responded to the AP report: “Let’s be clear that this means women’s lives take a back seat in Texas.”

mma 9 24

MAGA media are attacking ProPublica’s comprehensive account of the role Georgia’s six-week abortion ban played in a woman's death

Special ProgramsAbortion Rights & Reproductive Health

Written by Chloe Simon

Published 09/19/24

Right-wing media are attacking a ProPublica piece scrutinizing the death of Amber Nicole Thurman, who died after she could not get an abortion in her state and then got delayed abortion care in a local hospital.

The piece elaborates on Thurman’s “preventable” death and Georgia’s strict abortion ban and vague language on “life of the mother” exceptions. Thurman had to travel to North Carolina for a dilation and curettage because she was past the six-week limit in Georgia, but traffic made her miss her appointment, so she received medication abortion instead. She suffered a rare complication, and doctors at a Georgia hospital failed to perform the needed D&C until it was too late.

Right-wing and anti-abortion media have denounced ProPublica’s report as “lies” and claimed that Georgia’s abortion law is not the reason for Thurman’s death.

## ProPublica’s report on Thurman’s death shows how Georgia’s abortion ban puts patients and doctors in harm’s way

- On September 16, ProPublica published an investigative report detailing the death of Amber Nicole Thurman, who suffered rare complications after receiving abortion medication and then waited 20 hours to get a needed D&C.Thurman had scheduled a dilation and curettage in North Carolina because she was nine weeks pregnant and her home state of Georgia bans abortions after six weeks, but she missed her appointment due to heavy traffic. The clinic, which was four hours away from Thurman’s home, gave her a “two-pill abortion regimen” for her pregnancy, which was “well within the standard of care for that treatment.” After suffering complications from the medication, which are exceedingly rare, Thurman went to a Georgia hospital, where doctors waited 20 hours to perform a D&C. Thurman, who ProPublica described as being “otherwise healthy,” died at 28 years old. ProPublica, [9/16/24]

- Abortion pills mifepristone and misoprostol are incredibly safe and effective forms of medication. A CNN data analysis showed that abortion medication is “safer than penicillin and Viagra,” as both medications have higher death rates than mifepristone and misoprostol. Salon also noted that medication abortion “has a mortality rate of .0003%, which is 1 in every 377,000 cases. (Out of 377,000 women who give birth, in contrast, 83 will die.)” CNN, [6/13/24; Salon, 9/19/24]

- In 2019, Georgia passed the LIFE Act, which bans abortion after six weeks and forced Thurman to travel to North Carolina for abortion care. Thurman was forced to make the long trip to North Carolina to obtain the D&C because Georgia had banned the procedure with “few exceptions.” ProPublica explained that Georgia law specifically “prohibits doctors from using any instrument ‘with the purpose of terminating a pregnancy.’” Thurman also did not meet the requirements for Georgia’s “lifesaving exceptions” for an abortion. ProPublica noted that “while removing fetal tissue is not terminating a pregnancy, medically speaking, the law only specifies it’s not considered an abortion to remove ‘a dead unborn child’ that resulted from a ‘spontaneous abortion’ defined as ‘naturally occurring’ from a miscarriage or a stillbirth.” Thurman had told her doctors that she was not experiencing a spontaneous abortion, as she had already taken abortion medication to end a pregnancy. Reuters, [10/25/23; ProPublica, 9/16/24]

- The Guttmacher Institute has described bills like Georgia’s LIFE Act as “designed to be unworkable, containing vague and contradictory language and imposing cumbersome requirements.”In 2019, abortion activists had warned that the bill’s language was vague and could lead to harsh legal penalties for those who obtain abortions and those who perform them. Krystal Redman, the executive director of Spark Reproductive Justice Now, said that “eliminating a health care option” would be a “disservice” as Georgians are already “dying because of the maternal health here in Georgia.” In Thurman’s case, Salon also argued that “doctors still had every reason to be afraid” to perform a D&C because if “Thurman had received timely medical care and survived, a right-wing prosecutor could argue she wasn't that sick to begin with.” Guttmacher, [7/29/24; Vox, 6/28/19; Salon, 9/19/24]

## Right-wing and anti-abortion media are accusing ProPublica of “telling lies” and of incorrectly blaming Georgia’s abortion law for Thurman’s death

- Anti-abortion activist Lila Rose attacked the piece, claiming that it’s “a complete lie.”She accused ProPublica of using “tragic medical malpractice cases that have nothing to do with making abortion illegal to justify legalizing the killing of babies on demand.” Twitter/X, [9/17/24]

- Right-wing social media personality Amuse suggested that the ProPublica piece was “misinformation” and that the Georgia abortion law “was NOT a factor in the death of Amber Thurman.”The post also stated, “Mrs. Thurman sought and received a medication abortion and tragically died from an infection caused by the abortion. Doctors were unable to save her by the time she made it to the ER and was diagnosed.” Twitter/X, [9/17/24]

- Anti-abortion group Live Action claimed that Thurman’s death was “preventable” and that “abortion and medical neglect killed her.”The group further claimed that “if abortion pills were illegal, Amber Thurman would be alive today. Her twins would be alive today.” Twitter/X, [9/18/24, 9/18/24]

- Grabien founder Tom Elliott wrote, “The pro-abortion crowd would have you believe that Amber Thurman would still be alive were abortion readily available in Georgia. But that’s not what the details reveal.”He continued, “ProPublica cited no evidence that the delayed procedure related to Georgia’s abortion ban and not the kind of routine delays so often plaguing understaffed hospitals.” Twitter/X, [9/17/24]

* Breitbart published a piece titled “Left-Wing ProPublica Ties Georgia Abortion Law to Woman’s Death Without Clear Evidence.”The article goes on to claim that “Thurman’s story, in addition to other tragic stories, is already being used by Democrats to promote their agenda of undoing all abortion restrictions by passing a federal law that allows abortion-on-demand.” Breitbart, [9/18/24]

- Anti-abortion group SBA Pro-Life claimed, “Georgia’s pro-life law is not the reason for her death. Dangerous abortion drugs, and fearmongering about pro-life laws, are.”The group added, “shame on @ProPublica for their distortions.” Twitter/X, [9/17/24]

* Washington Examiner’s David Harsanyi wrote that the “ProPublica piece on Amber Thurman's death is a masterclass in hackery and conjecture.” He went on to say that there’s “literally nothing in the piece backing the claim that Thurman died because of GA's abortion law.” Twitter/X, [9/17/24]

- The Federalist wrote, “Media, Democrats Blame Pro-Lifers After The Abortion Pill They Promote Killed A Woman And Her Babies.”The piece claimed that “all evidence suggests Thurman’s death was due to medical negligence egged on by leftist fearmongering about lifesaving laws that provably protect women and babies from harm.” The Federalist, [9/18/24]

- Anti-abortion organization Secular Pro-Life claimed that “Amber Nicole Thurman died after legally obtaining abortion pills in North Carolina. Pro-abortion activists are falsely blaming Georgia law for her death.”Twitter/X, [9/17/24]

- Right-wing social media figures Keith and Kevin Hodge called ProPublica’s headline a “total lie,” saying that “she didn’t die because she couldn’t get an abortion. She took the abortion pills but the hospital waited too long to do surgery.” They also added that “the hospital is at fault.” Twitter/X, [9/16/24]

- The Family Research Council praised the work of Susan B. Anthony Pro Life and Live Action for “separating fact from fiction in the ProPublica story.”Twitter/X, [9/17/24]

### Broadcast news, Fox News failed to cover deaths stemming from Georgia's six-week abortion ban

09/19/24

### Project 2025 partner president makes misleading claims about IVF and hospital treatment of women dealing with miscarriages

09/13/24

### Anti-abortion groups have launched aggressive lobbying campaigns against ballot abortion access amendments across the country

09/05/24

September 18, 2024 rww

Ben Zeisloft says that Amber Nicole Thurman, a Georgia woman who died after failing to receive timely medical treatment for complications arising from taking abortion pills, is “burning in Hell”: “Praise God for his glorious justice. Praise God for causing the wicked to stumble and fall into the very nets that they set for the innocent.”

* Scott Lively claims that “the term ‘homophobia’ and its derivatives are no less offensive and demeaning to defenders of the natural family and traditional sexual morality than the term ‘faggot’ is to men afflicted with SSADness [same-sex attraction disorder]”: “A slur is a slur, and none of them has a legitimate place in civil discourse.”

Virulently misogynistic far-right activist Jon Miller defends domestic violence, saying that while “a woman every once in awhile needs a backhand” and that “errant wives” need to be “physically chastised,” what Diddy did went too far.

Nick Fuentes’ white supremacy is becoming increasingly open and aggressive, with him telling Jews and minorities that they “need to recognize your place” because “this is a white country.”

Finally, Lance Wallnau alleges that Vice President Kamala Harris demonstrated “15 microaggression expressions” during the presidential debate, akin to those displayed by Hitler: “Kamala is a dangerous woman.”

Broadcast news, Fox News failed to cover deaths stemming from Georgia's six-week abortion ban

09/19/24 mma

vph pretty definitive takedown in DNC and debate: trump is immoral, rape vic ans mo bleed out in pking lot not biz of govt esp djt ivf scramble

an 9 24

during the 1990s and 2000s, Republicans typically won statewide races in Texas by double digits. But Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) narrowly defeated Democrat Beto O'Rourke in the 2018 midterms, and in 2024, Cruz has been warning fellow Republicans not to underestimate the Democratic challenger he faces this year: Rep. Colin Allred, who trails Cruz by only 4 percent in an early September poll from The Hill and Emerson College.

One issue that Cruz has aggressively campaigned on in the past is abortion.

But journalist Joe Perticone, in an article published by the conservative website The Bulwark on September 12, stresses that the Texas Republican hasn't been talking about abortion nearly as much during his 2024 reelection campaign.

"For the entirety of his Senate career," Perticone explains, "Ted Cruz has been a warrior for the pro-life/anti-abortion movement. Banning abortion has been a major political priority for him. But now that Roe v. Wade has been overturned and some states are instituting abortion bans, Cruz — christened 'The Absolutist' in a New Yorker profile ten years ago — is approaching the issue quite differently."

Perticone notes that during his 2012 campaign, Cruz "opposed abortion in all cases except those where the life of the mother was at risk" — whereas in 2024, he "has decided to push the issue to the backseat of his policy agenda, if not avoid it entirely."

According to Perticone, Cruz's 2024 campaign shows how much of a "liability" abortion has become for Republicans.

"The Supreme Court fulfilled a major wish of Cruz and other anti-abortion politicians when it overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022," Perticone writes. "Since Dobbs v. Jackson was handed down, states like Texas have begun implementing sweeping abortion bans. These have become something of a political liability for Republicans."

*Joe Perticone's full article for The Bulwark is available at this link (subscription required).

an 9 24

All power to the people': Nebraskans to vote on dueling abortion ballot measures

BB 9 24

Texas is suing to block a new rule that protects the privacy of women who travel over state lines to receive an abortion. Attorney General Ken Paxton wants to know who they are—as a matter of "state investigative authority"—so they and anyone helping them leave the state may ultimately be prosecuted.

President Joe Biden, a Democrat, said in announcing the rule in April that no one should have their medical records "used against them, their doctor, or their loved one just because they sought or received lawful reproductive health care."

The measure came in response to efforts by authorities in some Republican-led states that ban abortion, including Texas, to restrict out-of-state travel for abortion. So far, no criminal prosecutions or civil judgments have resulted from those efforts.

Goverment so small it not only gets to know where you are and what you're doing, but gets to know everything everyone else knows about those things in the service of physically controlling what you do.

Texas already struck out on a similar plan for drug users, but 2017 was three Supreme Court seats ago. As an administrative law judge said then, why isn't Texas charging people for gambling in Vegas, given that it's illegal in Texas?

Previously:

• New doctors avoiding states with abortion bans

• Texas woman sues prosecutors who charged her with murder for using abortion medication

• Beverly Hills is an abortion rights battleground

• Arizona repeals 1864 abortion ban

flipflop 6 wk ban --> evang shitstorm

September 3, 2024

William Wolfe has a plan for deporting millions of undocumented immigrants: “One illegal immigrant at a time. It’s not a matter of ‘how,’ it’s simply a matter of will.”

Before former President Donald Trump flip flopped on the issue of reproductive rights, Ali Alexander was preparedto drop his support: “I cannot and will never allow a Republican to promise me one thing on abortion and then switch it up. It’s not worth it longterm. I’d sooner vote for an independent or write someone in who was pro-choice than a Republican who went from pro-life to pro-choice. Because I cannot vote for the extinction of the single most important moral issue facing our country. God has damned Moloch, Ba’al and all their followers.”

Ben Zeisloft was likewise outraged: “Donald Trump is a tyrant to innocent preborn babies and must repent of his wicked stances.“

Nick Fuentes hates it when he loses his temper on his program, but he can’t help himself because he has “Hitler energy.”

There seems to be a pattern of virulently antisemitic and racist right-wing commentators like Fuentes, Lucas Gage, Stew Peters, and Elijah Schaffer being brought on as guests on Jake Shields’ show. So what was Michael Flynn doing there?

Finally, Eric Metaxas likens the current situation in the United States to Nazi Germany: “I promise you, if Kamala Harris and Tim Walz are elected, they are going to come after pastors and people of faith like you have never seen.”

both trump and jdv says prez will not sign natl ban 8 24 vs 2025

an 8 24

In a report for The Associated Press last week, Peter Smith reported that Donald Trump's "support is as strong as ever among evangelicals and other conservative Christians."

Smith noted, "Many of the T-shirts and hats that were worn and sold at the rally in March proclaimed religious slogans such as 'Jesus is my savior, Trump is my president' and 'God, Guns & Trump.' One man’s shirt declared, 'Make America Godly Again,' with the image of a luminous Jesus putting his supportive hands on Trump’s shoulders."

The Atlantic's Peter Wehner highlights the hold Trump has on evangelicals in a Thursday, May 23 op-ed, noting, "In my years in politics, I’ve never found a group as easily seduced by political power as evangelicals." Wehner also wonders why that is.

Others, according to Wehner, have a similar question, wondering "how people who claim to be followers of Jesus can offer such dependable, even enthusiastic, support to a man of undisguised moral degeneracy."

He writes:

*How did we end up in a situation that led the late Timothy J. Keller, who was one of the most trusted Christian ministers in the world, to say that the word evangelical used to denote people who staked out the moral high ground—but now, in popular usage, is nearly synonymous with hypocrite?

*The answer is complicated. Part of the explanation is that many white evangelicals have convinced themselves that if Democrats win public office, especially the presidency, abortion and crime rates will skyrocket, there will be a 'war on Christianity,' and America will become a hellscape.

Furthermore, Wehner asserts, "Another reason things are playing out the way they are in the white evangelical world is that its leaders are giving in to the ancient temptation of proximity to political power, choosing to be court pastors in order to win the favor of the king. They are thrilled to be taken seriously, thrilled to be offered invitations to the halls of power, thrilled to be seen having influence in this world."

The Trinity Forum senior fellow also notes:

*In Walker Percy’s The Second Coming, Will Barrett, the novel’s main character, says of Christians, 'I cannot be sure they don’t have the truth. But if they have the truth, why is it the case that they are repellent precisely to the degree that they embrace and advertise that truth? One might even become a Christian if there were few if any Christians around. Have you ever lived in the midst of fifteen million Southern Baptists?' Barrett then puts forward a mystery: 'If the good news is true, why is not one pleased to hear it? And if the good news is true; why are its public proclaimers such assholes and the proclamation itself such a weary used-up thing?'

Wehner's friend, Steve Hayner — the former president of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship and Columbia Theological Seminary — said something before his death in 2015 that Wehner will never forget: "The central character of God, Steve said, is love and grace, and the central mission of Christians is to extend God’s hand of grace to others."

Contrary to Hayner's assertion, Wehner notes that Malcolm Gladwell wrote in a 1986 essay: "For some on the religious right, advancing a political agenda has come to take precedence over even the most basic ethical considerations."

Pointing out that prominent evangelical, Franklin Graham, recently "conceded that Trump—twice impeached, thrice married, and four times indicted—at times uses 'locker room' talk." Wehner writes, "The narrative that’s being pushed by Graham is that Trump’s 'locker room' talk and 'mean tweets' are his worst transgressions."

However, The Atlantic writer emphasizes:

*This assertion is a lie, ignoble but in some respects understandable. After all, Trump supporters can’t defend who Trump really is, the awful things he does and says. They can’t defend his lawlessness and cruelty and crudity, the attempted coups and encouragement to his supporters to violently storm the Capitol and hang his vice president. They can’t defend his fraud and promiscuity, his love of conspiracy theories and affinity for dictators, his pathological lying and deranged rants, his misogyny and racism, his mockingof prisoners of war and those with disabilities. So they take his least problematic actions and pretend they’re his most problematic offenses. It’s the opposite of damning someone with faint praise; in this case, it’s praising Trump with faint damnation.

*Wehner's full op-ed is available here.

an aug 27

Donald Trump — the former president responsible for the end of Roe v. Wade — last week claimed in a post published to Truth Social that if he wins the White House in November, he will turn into a reproductive rights advocate.

"My Administration will be great for women and their reproductive rights," he wrote, worrying staunch pro-life Republicans, like Trump's former Vice President Mike Pence.

NPR noted that the ex-MAGA official "called Trump’s comments 'concerning,'" and, "In a statement to the National Review, Pence said, 'The former President’s use of the language of the Left, pledging that his administration would be ‘great for women and their reproductive rights’ should be concerning for millions of pro-life Americans.'"

In an op-ed published by The Atlantic Tuesday, columnist Peter Wehner submits that "the pro-life justification for supporting Trump has just collapsed," and that evangelical Christians — who have long supported Trump, particularly for his pro-life views — have been betrayed by the former president.

Wehner now wonders whether staunch anti-abortion Republicans will condemn Trump's flip-flopping ways or if they plan to usher him into the presidency no matter what.

Aside from switching up his stance on the issue of reproductive rights, the columnist points out that "ending Roe is not the same thing as reducing the number of abortions in America." He adds, "In fact, the number of abortions has increased since the 2022 *Dobbs* decision, which overturned Roe. As Philip Klein wrote in National Review, 'overturning Roe was only the necessary first step of a much longer battle to protect the lives of the unborn. And on that battle, it increasingly looks like Trump is joining the other side.'"

Wehner writes:

Who in the pro-life movement—Al Mohler, Mike Huckabee, Franklin Graham, Eric Metaxas, Marjorie Dannenfelser, Ralph Reed, Tony Perkins, Robert Jeffress, and countless others—will speak out, publicly and forcefully and relentlessly, against Trump’s about-face? Will they tell the full truth, which is that abortions increased during the Trump presidency, that the pro-life movement is weaker than at almost any time in its history, and that, when it comes to making the Republican Party the home of the pro-life cause, Trump is doing unprecedented damage?*

Although The Atlantic columnist emphasizes, "This is not a hard call," Wehner recognizes that this level of boldness is unlikely.

Numerous Project 2025 partners have falsely claimed that abortions are never medically necessary

08/13/24 mma

Tony Perkins Calls GOP Platform Process ‘Despicable,’ Slams Chair Marsha Blackburn’s ‘Unbelievable’ and ‘Shocking’ Behavior

July 12, 2024 RWW

Right Wing Watch reported this week that members of the Republican Platform Committee were subjected to heavy-handed authoritarian tactics by the Trump RNC, which refused to allow any questioning of the candidate’s wishes. Rather than drafting and debating the platform in public, Trump’s team closed the doors, shut down debate, took away delegates’ phones, and intimidated them into rubber stamping the language wanted by the Trump campaign. Not surprisingly, that hasn’t gone over too well with some platform committee members.

On Thursday, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins used his Washington Watch show to slam the “despicable” and “disgusting” process and criticize the “heavy-handed” platform committee chairperson, Sen. Marsha Blackburn, who apparently acted as the Trump team’s enforcer. She was “unbelievable,” said Perkins:

I mean, it was shocking. They allowed for no amendments or discussion before forcing a scripted vote. Now, this process done in secrecy behind closed doors, quite frankly, is unbecoming of a party that champions free speech and due process.

Ironically, the document itself calls for vigorous defense of free speech and the end of government censorship. Well, deprived of the opportunity to actually discuss this so called draft document and strengthen the weak platform that lacked the party’s historical stand for the unborn, there was a group of us delegates that have submitted a minority report to supplement the platform…

The delegates had a gag, basically a gag rule put on them, their phones taken. Media was not allowed in. So most people don’t know what happened in the room. But fortunately, I have a microphone, and I can tell you. It was despicable. It was disgusting. It was not befitting of a party that claims to be a defender of law and order, due process, and the freedom of speech—and certainly not a party that claims to protect the unborn.

A July 11 action alert from FRC criticized the “highly choreographed” and “unprecedented, tightly scripted process that allowed for no amendments or substantive debate before the vote.”

Perkins and his FRC colleagues aren’t the only ones angry about the process. “They rolled us,” outraged platform committee member Gail Ruzicka told Milwaukee’s WISN12News.

The language rammed through the platform committee is purposefully vague on issues like abortion and marriage. That way, the Trump campaign can send two different messages. Religious-right leaders loyal to the campaign can put the strongest anti-abortion spin on the language, while the campaign encourages headlines about a new “moderate” position to appeal to the majority of voters who don’t share the religious right’s anti-choice and anti-equality obsessions.

Still, the abandonment of more explicit language calling for constitutional bans on abortion and laws defining marriage as one man and one woman is rankling some religious-right leaders.

Perkins called the platform “woefully inadequate in communicating a definitive position on the protection of human life.” He complained that the last GOP platform recognized God 15 times, while the Trump version has just two “passing references” to God. And he noted that the platform contains no reference at all to the Second Amendment—“none, zero.”

Religious right activist Michael Brown complained this week that the platform language was so “watered down” that the GOP can no longer be viewed as “the party of life.” Brown warned that “allowing the platform to be weakened in the name of electoral pragmatism might signal a whole new wave of GOP candidates who are less committed to the pro-life cause but who are allegedly better than the Democrats.” He added, “It might also embolden current GOP congressmen to soften their own stances in the name of electability, thereby continuing to erode the GOP’s stance for life. In the end, there might be little to distinguish the two parties when it comes to abortion.” Brown continued:

My counsel would be that we do not take this new platform lying down, but do our best to work for a change until the last minute possible. If, in the end, we cannot bring change about, then we still work with the GOP for the moment while making it clear behind the scenes that the next GOP candidate will have to embrace our pro-life position — otherwise, they will not make it through the primaries.

Among other religious-right figures unhappy about the platform include former VP Mike Pence, Jason Rapert of the Christian nationalist National Association of Christian Lawmakers, and former Trump attorney Jenna Ellis, who went dramatically for a maximalist position, posting, “You cannot be a faithful Christian and a faithful Republican after today.” Brent Leatherwood, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission called it “political malpractice.” Ryan Anderson, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, called the platform changes an example of “cowardice.”

Anderson and his mentor Robert George—who has urged the Supreme Court to require all states to treat abortion as homicide—were among a group of anti-abortion activists who released a letter to GOP delegates Friday urging them to “vote down any platform that weakens the party’s pro-life stance.”

At the right-wing Christian outlet The Stream, John Zmirak slammed MAGA politicians and anti-abortion activists who have gone along with Trump:

It’s sickening to see previously pro-life politicians like Marco Rubio and J.D. Vance sell their souls for pennies on the dollar, then watch pro-life groups pretend the miserable half of a moldy loaf tossed to them by the Trump campaign is a wedding cake. It’s both morally repulsive and deeply humiliating.

As Right Wing Watch noted earlier this week, Trump’s team clearly calculated that religious-right activists have nowhere else to go. At The Stream, Zmirak demonstrated the thinking that Trump’s team is counting on. “We must yell our heads off now, try to bluff Trump and his lowbrow cronies into thinking we might sit the election out,” Zmirak wrote, but in the end religious-right voters would have to “quietly go ahead and vote in our own self-defense.”

Other religious-right activists who have worked hard to cement the relationship between conservative evangelicals and the Republican Party warn that even if very few of their constituents would ever vote for a Democratic candidate or sit the election out, many who feel betrayed may feel less motivated to make phone calls and knock on doors to turn out voters.

And maybe some of them, perhaps those who learn how Trump’s team treated his close allies on the platform committee, may be more open to warnings about Trump’s dictatorial tendencies, the authoritarian agenda of Project 2025, and the consequences of giving Trump power after the right-wing Supreme Court ruled that he is virtually immune from accountability for any crimes he commits as president.

thom 7 24 an

alternet- no lnx see thom 3 bak for anno

Home | Behind the GOP's radical agenda to penalize 'sinners'

Thom HartmannJuly 06, 2024

Donald Trump, the Republican Party, and Project 2025 have some very specific plans for nationally resetting the legal status of half the American population, and they’re using religion and “sin” to justify their bizarre imposition of 18th century values.

They explicitly want to reverse the status of women’s legal, workplace, marital, and social equality and return to a time when biblical law dictated that men ran everything from the household to business to governance and law.

One key to women being able to play leadership and workplace roles has been their ability to regulate their own fertility, from access to birth control, the morning-after pill, and abortion.

By enforcing the Comstock Act — which is still on the books, as Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito, and numerous other Republicans keep reminding us — they will be able to ban the shipment of anything, from drugs to surgical devices, that can be used to produce an abortion. This could even end most hospital-based abortions by essentially outlawing the equipment needed to perform them.

As Project 2025 proclaims on p. 594 of their Mandate for Leadership for the next Republican administration:

:{:{“Announcing a Campaign to Enforce Criminal Prohibitions in 18 U.S. Code §§ 1461 and 1462 [the Comstock Act] Against Providers and Distributors of Abortion Pills That Use the Mail. Federal law [the Comstock Act] prohibits mailing ‘[e]very article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing which is advertised or described in a manner calculated to lead another to use or apply it for producing abortion.’}:

Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs, there is now no federal prohibition on the enforcement of this statute. The Department of Justice in the next conservative Administration should therefore announce its intent to enforce federal law….”}:

The second key is to give men the power to challenge women who want a divorce. As Senator JD Vance said in 2021:

“One of the great tricks that I think the sexual revolution pulled on the American populace” is the idea that “these marriages were fundamentally, you know, they were maybe even violent, but certainly they were unhappy, and so getting rid of them and making it easier for people to shift spouses like they change their underwear, that’s going to make people happier in the long term”.

Republican legislators in Louisiana, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Texas have already proposed eliminating no-fault divorce in those states, and the trend is picking up steam among GOP politicians nationwide.

Multiple Project 2025 partners, including the powerful and influential American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which has helped introduce thousands of pieces of state and federal legislation, are explicit about this goal, as Media Matters for America noted:

“The American Legislative Exchange Council proposed a piece of legislation dubbed the “Marriage Contract Act,” which would have eliminated no-fault divorce. [Center for Media and Democracy, ALEC Exposed, 2/13/17]”

The consequences could be dramatic and deadly for women, as The Guardian recently explained:

“Between 1976 and 1985, states that passed the [no-fault divorce] laws saw their domestic violence rates against men and women fall by about 30%; the number of women murdered by an intimate partner declined by 10%; and female suicide rates declined by 8 to 16%.”

Republicans nationwide are calling for a reversal of the women’s rights movement dating all the way back to Abagail Adams’ imploring her husband John to “remember the ladies” at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 through today, and are not shy about it.

For example, Federal District Judge Michael Kacsmaryk, 46, was appointed to the federal bench by Donald Trump. A Republican activist and religious fundamentalist, he’s said that “so-called marriage equality” has put America “on a road to potential tyranny” and reflects a “complete abuse of rule of law principles.”

As The Washington Post noted, Kacsmaryk has argued that:

“The sexual revolution ushered in a world where an individual is ‘an autonomous blob of Silly Putty unconstrained by nature or biology’ and where ‘marriage, sexuality, gender identity and even the unborn child must yield to the erotic desires of liberated adults.’”

Kacsmaryk, the judge who tried to outlaw mifepristone nationally (which the Supreme Court will almost certainly decide on next year) is part of a substantial movement within the GOP to use religion to roll back the rights and status of women.

Because their “beliefs” are grounded in their religion and they believe that women who get abortions or use some types of birth control (IUDs, morning-after pills, etc.) are committing the ultimate sin, murder, they want to see these sinning women suffer for their “crimes.”

Like people who love the death penalty (and in two states now state legislators have called for the death penalty for women who get abortions), they want to be able to torture them and watch them suffer; they want them to experience humiliation, and feel mortification for their sin of rejecting a pregnancy initiated by a man who was ordained by their god to be their master and the head of their household.

Torturing women for religious reasons is nothing new for American theological zealots.

Louise and I used to live just a short drive from Dover, New Hampshire, the fourth-largest city in the state, near the Maine border and the Atlantic seacoast. Generations ago, rightwing politicians and preachers were enforcing social control, much like the GOP’s forced birthers are trying to do today.

John Greenleaf Whittier’s poem “How the Women Went from Dover” tells the tale of three young women who dared to challenge that day’s most powerful religious men, that early generation of the people driving the most extreme parts of what today has morphed into the forced birth movement.

Whittier’s poem begins:

The tossing spray of Cocheco’s fall

Hardened to ice on its rocky wall,

As through Dover town in the chill, gray dawn,

Three women passed, at the cart-tail drawn!

The three women were Anne Coleman, Mary Tomkins, and Alice Ambrose, and their crime was adhering to and promoting female-tolerant Quaker beliefs in a rabidly rightwing town.

This so enraged the minister of Dover’s Congregational church, John Reyner, that he and church elder Reverend Hatevil Nutter (yes, that was his real name) lobbied the crown magistrate, Captain Richard Walderne, to have them punished for their challenge to Reyner’s and Nutter’s authority.

It was a bitter New England winter when Walderne complied, ordering the three women stripped naked and tied to the back of a horse-drawn cart by their wrists, then dragged through town while receiving ten lashes each.

As Whittier wrote:

Bared to the waist, for the north wind’s grip

And keener sting of the constable’s whip,

The blood that followed each hissing blow

Froze as it sprinkled the winter snow.

A local man, George Bishop, wrote at the time what he witnessed:

“Deputy Waldron caused these women to be stripped naked from the middle upwards, and tied to a cart, and after a while cruelly whipped them, whilst the priest stood and looked and laughed at it.”

It was a start, from Reverend Reyner’s point of view, but hardly enough to scare the women of the entire region from which he drew his congregation. So, he got the young women’s punishment extended to 11 nearby towns over 80 miles of snow-covered roads, all following the same routine.

So into the forest they held their way,

By winding river and frost-rimmed bay,

Over wind-swept hills that felt the beat

Of the winter sea at their icy feet.

The next town was Hampton, where the constable decided that just baring them above the waist wasn’t enough. As Sewall’s History of the Quakers records:

“So he stripped them, and then stood trembling whip in hand, and so he did the execution. Then he carried them to Salisbury through the dirt and the snow half the leg deep; and here they were whipped again.”

As Whittier wrote in his poem:

Once more the torturing whip was swung,

Once more keen lashes the bare flesh stung.

“Oh, spare! they are bleeding!” a little maid cried,

And covered her face the sight to hide.

Whipping, beating, stoning, hanging, nailing, being pilloried (publicly clamped to a post through neck and wrist holes, often naked and sometimes for days at a time), dragging, burning, branding, and dozens of other techniques were employed by religious and government authorities in the early American colonies to enforce religious thought and behavior, particularly against women.

As Whittier wrote:

If her cry from the whipping-post and jail

Pierced sharp as the Kenite’s driven nail,

O woman, at ease in these happier days,

Forbear to judge of thy sister’s ways!

For the entirety of “civilized” human history — in country after country, culture after culture, religion after religion — crusaders for Zeus, Ra, Thor, Odin, Aphrodite, Venus, JHWH, Shiva, Rama, Krishna, Jesus, Quetzalcoatl, Mohamed, Ceridwen, Xpiacoc, Ishtar, and Amen (among hundreds of others) have, at various times, punished, tortured, and even killed women who refused to acknowledge their male gods and the rules of their patriarchal religious and political systems.

— Adherents to radical Islam from Saudi Arabia to Afghanistan to The Philippines today require women to cover most all of their bodies, and delight in publicly whipping and even beheading females who won’t comply.

— Fundamentalist Hindus in India today burn women to death if they’ve defied religious authorities or the patriarchs of their families.

— For over 1000 years, Christian fundamentalists have — as Whittier documents — tortured, hung, impaled, and burned to death women who defied their male ministers’ religious mandates.

What we’re seeing today in these attempts to regulate women’s behavior by the GOP is a simple extension of religious fundamentalism and patriarchy that goes back as far as ancient Samaria.

This lust for domination is really about wielding political power under the guise of religion.

Again, this is nothing new. It’s an ancient story that keeps echoing through history and Trump, the GOP, and Project 2025 are committed to reviving.

Here in America today, it’s part of a larger war on “uppity women,” non-whites, non-fundamentalist-Christian people, and gender minorities.

Which is why it’s so clear that bringing back enforcement of the Comstock Act via Project 2025 is not about the safety of women. It’s not even about reducing the number of abortions.

It’s about control, power, and their assertion that an angry Christian god has told them they are uniquely suited to interpret his scripture in a political context. They, and they alone, can choose to embrace the punitive parts of Christianity and ignore the empathetic and loving parts of it.

Those sadists want to shame women who’ve rejected their religious beliefs and gone on to get abortions, seek divorces, or participate in the workplace or government. Who have defied their religiously-justified patriarchal political authority.

They want to publicly humiliate women, harass them, and teach them a lesson about who’s really in charge.

And, if the adjudicated rapist Donald Trump takes the White House this fall, they’ll be able to gleefully do it — like Reverend Nutter — under the sanction and protection of the law.

NOW READ: How to end all Trump prosecutions

### Donald Trump Jr. calls Fox News “scumbags”

07/03/24 6:54 PM EDT

### Trump regurgitated right-wing media’s anti-migrant falsehoods at the debate

07/03/24 4:06 PM EDT

### Amidst intra-party fight over GOP abortion platform, Project 2025 partner launches initiative to push for hardline stance

07/03/24 3:51 PM EDT

### Right-wing media recycled a years-old DACA smear to fearmonger about migrant crime

07/03/24 3:00 PM EDT

### National news media barely covered the infant mortality spike that followed Texas’ anti-abortion law

07/03/24 2:22 PM EDT

### Fox News ramps up attacks on Vice President Kamala Harris

07/03/24 1:23 PM EDT

### No, Trump hasn't exercised “discipline” since the debate

07/03/24 12:13 PM EDT

### Indiana’s lieutenant prophet

07/03/24 11:17 AM EDT

### Daily Wire's Michael Knowles calls the House Committee on Un-American Activities “great” and “fabulous”

07/03/24 10:28 AM EDT

### Since becoming RNC co-chair, Lara Trump has repeatedly pushed election denial and conspiracy theories on her podcast

07/03/24 9:15 AM EDT

### On Facebook, content trashing electric vehicles reliably draws engagement

07/03/24 9:03 AM EDT

### Watch CNN's report on anti-abortion radio host Ed Martin's role in crafting Republican Party policy

07/02/24 never saves life of mom says sci

idaho ER airlift to utah?!

an 6 24

One of the most consequential Supreme Court decisions expected this term was momentarily posted to the Court's website before it was promptly taken down.

Bloomberg first reported that the decision in a major abortion-related case briefly appeared on SCOTUS' website, in which it appeared as if the Court would allow for emergency abortions to be performed in Idaho despite the Gem State's ban on abortions. The author of the opinion and a breakdown of how individual justices voted on the decision remains unknown.

In the cases, Moyle v. United States and State of Idaho v. United States, justices are expected to dismiss the case brought by the plaintiff as "improvidently granted." This means that Idaho's challenging the application of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) against its own abortion ban would mean that the existing federal law supersedes state law.

Idaho was one of the first states to officially ban all abortions after SCOTUS overturned the Roe v. Wade decision in June of 2022. That summer, Idaho's GOP-controlled legislature passed the Defense of Life Act, which makes it a felony crime punishable by two to five years in prison for anyone who performs an abortion within the state. Additionally, any abortion provider who performs the procedure would have their license suspended for six months pending review, and their license would be permanently revoked on the second offense.

While the law provides exceptions for cases in which the life of the mother would be at risk, many emergency rooms in Republican-controlled states frequently turned away pregnant patients due to not wanting to run afoul of the law. This is a violation of EMTALA, which states that any hospital that receives federal funding from Medicaid and Medicare has to provide emergency treatment to any emergency room patient.

"They are so scared of a pregnant patient, that the emergency medicine staff won’t even look," George Washington University professor Sara Rosenbaum told the Associated Press in April. "They just want these people gone."

While the brief posting of the Idaho abortion decision may not have been the final opinion, justices may have sided with the U.S. government based on the Supremacy Clause. Article VI, paragraph 2 of the Constitution explicitly instructs states that their laws may not interfere with federal law, and that when the two clash, federal law will be prioritized.

Since Idaho passed its abortion ban, the state has seen an exodus of obstetricians and gynecologists. Oregon Public Broadcasting (OPB) reported that the Gem State has lost roughly one in five OB-GYN professionals since its abortion ban became law.

“What we’re seeing in this report and with this exodus of providers is that now Idaho is a state that criminalizes physicians, and the chilling effect is real," Valley County Family care obstetrician and Coalition board president Caitlin Gustafson told OPB in February.

Click here to read Bloomberg's report (subscription required).

mma 5 24

as the Republican National Committee quietly fights over how to approach abortion in its 2024 platform before the November election, Tony Perkins, president of the extreme anti-LGBTQ organization Family Research Council, is telling Republicans to embrace a rigid anti-abortion position.

According to a May 23 NBC report, the Trump campaign and its allies at the RNC are trying to prevent anti-abortion extremists from being elected as state delegates for the party’s platform committee, so as to not push the party too far right on contentious issues before the general election.

Perkins is a delegate to the GOP platform committee, a position he’s held twice in the past, and has indicated his intention to insist upon extreme anti-abortion policies. The Family Research Council is a partner of Project 2025, a right-wing extremist policy and staffing agenda for the next Republican administration, giving the group significant influence over a potential second Trump administration.

In a May 21 speech to the Muskegon County, Michigan, GOP[vid?

to Perkins’ YouTube page, the FRC president warned that Republicans are choosing to “retreat” from abortion and instructed them to instead commit to an “inflexible” anti-choice stance for 2024.

Video

CitationFrom the 2024 Muskegon County GOP Lincoln Day Dinner

He also published an open letter on May 22 to FRC’s blog, The Washington Stand, adapted from his speech. He again described “rumors and reports of an organized campaign to weaken” the GOP’s abortion stance — a campaign which, from the NBC story, appears to be led by Trump allies.

On the May 28 edition of Perkins’ podcast, Washington Watch, FRC’s Quena Gonzalez built upon the speech, calling on the audience to contact their state GOP chair and ask them to select anti-abortion delegates who will “protect life in the Republican national party platform.”

In April, Perkins suggested that the 2022 Supreme Court decision Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization overturning Roe v. Wade did not go far enough, declaring: “This is not simply a state’s issue, this is for every level of government to protect the unborn.”

Additionally, Project 2025 partners Russ Vought, president of the Christian nationalist organization Center for Renewing America, and Ed Martin, president of the Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund, have both been announced recently as platform committee leaders.

Vought, the committee’s policy director, promotes Christian nationalism and has called to staff the next Republican administration with an “army” of conservatives who have a “biblical worldview.” Martin previously led the Republican National Coalition for Life, which denounces “fake pro-lifers” and commits to holding “Republican lawmakers accountable to the pro-life principles in our platform.”

Project 2025 and its partners are strongly anti-choice and their stances go past restricting abortion and criminalizing abortion medication, seeking to crack down on reproductive health care more broadly — including striking any mention of abortion from government laws, policies, and regulations.

### Media Matters weekly newsletter, May 24

05/24/24 10:44 AM EDT

### Key Project 2025 figure Russ Vought was appointed to the RNC's platform committee. Mainstream coverage of the move was minimal.

05/21/24 11:22 AM EDT

### Project 2025 director: A Trump administration will likely adopt many of the group’s policy suggestions

05/14/24

It’s a 'tragedy' not to force rape victims to give birth: Kristi Noem - Alternet.org

---}:

AN 4 24

Aizona Republicans, including far-right U.S. Senate hopeful Kari Lake, have been in damage-control mode following a recent ruling by the Arizona Supreme Court — which upheld a draconian 1864 law that makes abortion illegal in almost all cases.

Lake, who still identifies as "pro-life," came out against the decision even though she applauded the 1864 law in the past. And former Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey criticized the Arizona Supreme Court ruling as well.

With Arizona having evolved into a crucial swing state, Republicans fear that the ruling could hurt not only Lake, but also, presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump — who lost Arizona to President Joe Biden in 2020.

A new report from AZ Family/CBS 5 political editor Dennis Welch reveals the scope of the Arizona Republican Party's effort to gain control of the abortion narrative in the state.

According to Welch, an abortion-related PowerPoint strategy for Arizona Republicans was accidentally sent to Democrats serving in the Arizona State Legislature. And the strategy details Republican efforts to undermine an abortion-rights ballot initiative.

Welch reports, "The Republican outline includes two phases, with the first offering a ballot referral that constitutionally protects abortion restrictions that are already on the books. But unlike the citizens' initiative, the GOP's phase one proposal 'does not create a right to abortion.' The second phase, titled 'SEND VOTERS TWO OTHER OPTIONS THAT CONFLICT WITH (Arizona for Abortion Access) INITATIVE,' would send a 15-week and a 6-week abortion ban to the ballot."

Republican House Speaker Ben Toma confirmed the PowerPoint "presents ideas drafted for internal discussion and consideration within the caucus."

"I’ve publicly stated that we are looking for options to address this subject and this is simply part of that,” Toma told AZ Family/CBS 5.

In a segment on AZ Family/CBS 5, Welch sheds additional light on the leaked PowerPoint presentation.

Welch reports, "unlike the proposed Arizona Abortion Access Act, the GOP proposal does not create a right to abortion."

"In addition, it would give the (Arizona State) Legislature the authority to make future changes, which could include stricter abortion regulations," Welch continues. "It would split and dilute support for the Arizona Abortion Access Act. As for what's not in the memo: any attempt to repeal the Civil War-era law that, when it goes into effect, will ban nearly all abortions."

READ MORE:['Massive implications for November': AZ Supreme Court upholds 19th century anti-abortion law(https://www.alternet.org/arizona-supreme-court-abortion/)

*Read Arizona Family's full report here and watch the video below or at this link.

guk 3 24

when the former president Donald Trump appointed the Texas attorney James Ho to the fifth circuit court of appeals in 2017, lawyers at the prominent law firm Gibson Dunn – where Ho worked before his appointment – had a problem: how to replace the politically connected Ho. Turns out, they didn’t even need to change the home address for his replacement. Ho’s wife, Allyson, moved into her husband’s position and his old office.

Meet the Hos.

Few people outside of legal circles have heard of the Hos, yet the couple is tied to the case before the US supreme court that will determine women’s access to mifepristone, a drug commonly used in medication abortions. The court hears arguments in the case on Tuesday.

Ho served on the three-judge panel last summer that ruled to restrict access to mifepristone. The legal group behind the mifepristone case, Alliance Defending Freedom, made at least six payments from 2018 through 2022 to his wife, Allyson, a powerhouse federal appellate lawyer who has argued in front of the supreme court and has deep connections to the conservative legal movement that has led the attack on the right to abortion in the US.

The payments don’t violate the court’s code of conduct, according to Stephen Gillers, a New York University emeritus professor of law and author of Regulation of Lawyers: Problems of Law and Ethics. But some court watchers argue that Ho’s failure to recuse himself from the case illustrates why public trust in the judiciary is eroding. One recent survey found that 63% of judges noted a dip in the public’s positive perception of them.

“When Americans see a case like this – so clearly concocted and motivated by special interests, and with evident connections between those interests and the judges on the case, it does tremendous damage to the reputation of the courts, and to the public trust in their ability to give all litigants an even shake,” said Alex Aronson, the executive director of the non-partisan group Court Accountability and a former chief counsel to the Democratic senator Sheldon Whitehouse.

In an email to the Guardian, James Ho wrote that he “consulted our court’s ethics advisor prior to sitting in that case, and was advised that there was no basis for recusal. In any event, my wife’s practice is to donate honoraria to charity.”

The Hos are just one of the increasing number of power couples in the conservative movement in which the wife of a prominent official works in the background, laying the groundwork for Republican policies that their spouses will rule upon or legislate. In the mifepristone case, the wife of the Missouri senator Josh Hawley, Erin, is the attorney of record for Alliance Defending Freedom and argued the case before Ho. The supreme court justice Clarence Thomas rankled the legal world when he refused to recuse himself from a case involving questions about the January 6 insurrection and the “Stop the Steal” campaign to which his wife, Ginni Thomas, was closely tied.

For Aronson, these are examples of “serious concerns about what is becoming an apparent pattern of coordinated activity by some of these couples in this extremist movement, including the Thomases, Hawleys and Hos”.

Ho’s rulings have included zealous language, referencing what he called in one decision “the moral tragedy of abortion”. He has suggested that protection orders in domestic violence cases “are too often misused as a tactical device in divorce proceedings – and issued without any actual threat of danger”. Orin Kerr, a University of California, Berkeley, law professor, tweeted that one of Ho’s opinions “reads like a politician’s op-ed, not a legal opinion; judges should stick to law”.

What Alabama’s IVF ruling reveals about the ascendant Christian nationalist movement

Read more](https://yyy.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/02/christian-nationalism-alabama-ivf-ruling-politics)

In the mifepristone case, in which Ho supported rolling back decisions made by the Food and Drug Administration to loosen restrictions on the drug, he wrote: “Unborn babies are a source of profound joy for those who view them. Expectant parents eagerly share ultrasound photos with loved ones. Friends and family cheer at the sight of an unborn child. Doctors delight in working with their unborn patients – and experience an aesthetic injury when they are aborted.”

He has chafed legal traditionalists from the moment of his swearing-in, when he opted for the ceremony to be held in the private library of Harlan Crow – the conservative mega-donor who, ProPublica revealed, has lavished Clarence Thomas with trips on his yacht and paid the$6,000-a-month private school tuition for the justice’s great-nephew. Ho worked as a clerk for Thomas in 2005.

Ho vowed to boycott hiring Yale Law School graduates as clerks after students interrupted conservative speakers on campus, noting “cancellations and disruptions seem to occur with special frequency” at the Ivy League school.

His caustic writings have drawn the spotlight while his wife, Allyson, has been working more inconspicuously, helping lay the legal foundation for conservative policies in her own work.

She appears frequently as a speaker for the Federalist Society, the group that has led the conservative effort to reshape the judiciary. She has also worked pro bono for the Christian right organization First Liberty Institute, a group that describes its mission “to defend and restore religious liberty in our schools, for our churches and houses of worship, inside the military, and throughout the public arena”.

It’s unclear what Alliance Defending Freedom paid Allyson Ho to do, yet ending abortion is central among the organization’s goals. The group helped writethe Mississippi law that led to the Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v Wade and ended the 50-year-old constitutional right to an abortion.

Her husband’s financial disclosures list descriptions of “Academy” or “Freedom Summit”, next to some of the payments. The ADF hosts various legal trainings as part of its ADF Legal Academy that “seamlessly combines outstanding legal training with an unwavering commitment to Christian principles” and a Young Lawyers Academy.

The Alliance Defending Freedom said: “ADF often invites lawyers of various backgrounds and experiences to speak at events. ADF offers honorariums for speaker participation. Allyson Ho is an exceptional lawyer with vast and diverse legal experience.”

A request to speak with Allyson Ho sent to Gibson Dunn has not been answered.

The Texas senators Ted Cruz and John Cornyn, both Republicans, appointed Allyson to the state’s committee responsible for recommending and vetting its recommendations to fill judicial vacancies. Neither Cruz nor Cornyn’s offices responded to the Guardian’s request for the names or dates of service for the judicial vetting committee nor did they respond to questions about what role, if any, Allyson had in her husband’s nomination to the bench.

[

‘They hate God’: US anti-abortion activists aim to fight back on 51st Roe anniversary

Read more](https://yyy.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/jan/22/roe-v-wade-abortion-anniversary-2023)

In 2023, the Texas attorney general, Ken Paxton, hired Allyson and Gibson Dunn, at a rate of $1,313 per hour – with a $7m cap – to represent the state in a decade-long legal battle in which a federal judge determined Texas had failed to protect foster children. The state had previously been represented by attorneys on its own payroll. The move to hire Allyson and her firm signaled that Texas could be looking to fight backagainst court orders mandating Texas comply with federal monitors appointed to ensure the safety of vulnerable children in its care by appealing district court rulings to the fifth circuit court of appeals – the court on which James Ho serves.

The mifepristone case might just be the beginning of the Hos’ influence, Gillers, the NYU professor, said.

“If Trump wins the election, you’ll see Ho on the short list of nominees to the supreme court,” he said. “He is obviously behaving in a way that makes him a very prominent candidate in a Republican administration.”

That appointment could once again leave an empty office – one that some might want Allyson to fill.

an 2 24

Sen. Ron Wyden and privacy rights advocates this week are sounding the alarm about an anti-abortion group using cellphone location data to send misinformation to people who visited hundreds of Planned Parenthood clinics across the country.

"If a data broker could track Americans' cellphones to help extremists target misinformation to people at hundreds of Planned Parenthood locations across the United States, a right-wing prosecutor could use that same information to put women in jail," Wyden (D-Ore.) said in a statement Tuesday.

"Federal watchdogs should hold the data broker accountable for abusing Americans' private information," he added. "And Congress needs to step up as soon as possible to ensure extremist politicians can't buy this kind of sensitive data without a warrant."

Since the right-wing U.S. Supreme Court reversedRoe v. Wade with its June 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, anti-choice state policymakers have ramped up attacks on abortion rights, elevating concerns about patient privacy.

Wyden explained in a Tuesday letter that his office launched an investigation after The Wall Street Journalreported last May that the Veritas Society, a nonprofit established by Wisconsin Right to Life, hired the advertising agency Recrue Media for an anti-abortion ad campaign targeting clinic visitors, whose locations were tracked by the data broker Near Intelligence.

As Wyden wrote to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chair Lina Khan and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chair Gary Gensler:

My staff spoke with Steven Bogue, the co-founder and managing principal of Recrue Media on May 19, 2023, who revealed that to target these ads, his employees used Near's website to draw a line around the building and parking lot of each targeted facility. On May 26, 2023, my staff spoke with Near's chief privacy officer, Jay Angelo, who confirmed that, until the summer of 2022, the company did not have any technical controls in place to prevent its customers targeting people who visited sensitive facilities, such as reproductive health clinics. On a webpage that has since been taken down, but was saved by the Internet Archive, the Veritas Society stated that in 2020 in Wisconsin alone, it delivered 14.3 million ads to people who visited abortion clinics, and "served ads to those devices across the women's social pages, Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat." The scale of this invasive surveillance-enabled ad campaign remains unknown, however, Mr. Bogue told my staff that the company used Near to target ads to people who had visited 600 Planned Parenthood locations in the lower 48 states.

Justin Sherman, who studies data brokers at Duke University, toldPolitico that "this is the largest targeting campaign we've seen to date against reproductive health clinics based on brokered data."

In case you missed this yesterday, I discovered that data brokers are helping anti-abortion extremists exploit location data to target patients. The prospect of how red-state prosecutors could abuse this information should terrify every single American with a smartphone.

— (@)

Wyden also highlighted Journalreporting from October about Near selling location data to defense contractors that resold it to U.S. Defense Department and intelligence agencies. He wrote that Angelo, the privacy officer, "confirmed that the company had for three years sold location data to the defense contractor AELIUS Exploitation Technologies."

"Mr. Angelo revealed that after joining Near in June of 2022, he conducted a review of the company's practices and discovered that the company was facilitating the sale of location data to the U.S. government that had been obtained without user consent," the senator continued, noting the removal of "misleading statements" from Near's website.

"The former executives that led Near during the period in which it engaged in these egregious violations of Americans' privacy are now under criminal investigation, according to a statement made by the company's lawyer during a December 11, 2023, bankruptcy hearing. But prosecuting those individuals for engaging in financial fraud will not address Near's corporate abuses," Wyden argued, urging the FTC and SEC to take various actions over the company's "outrageous conduct" that "recklessly harmed the public and investors."

Wyden's letter comes as the Republican-controlled U.S. House plans to take up the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act, which would reform Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), spying powers temporarily extended late last year that agencies—especially the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)—have abused.

Section 702 only allows warrantless surveillance targeting foreigners located outside the United States, but Americans' data is also swept up, and privacy advocates within and outside of Congress—including Wyden—have long been pushing for warrant protections, a key issue in this week's debates about the Republican-led reform bill.

A shocking invasion of privacy that lays bare just how far forced-birth extremists will go to track, monitor, intimidate & scare women.\n\nI am deeply concerned with how this data could be used by states that criminalize abortion. This must be investigated. \nhttps://t.co/TO0Y2QMgx4

— (@)

Responding to Wyden's letter, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) said Wednesday that "this is outrageous. Americans' most personal private health data is being bought and sold for politics. Major surveillance changes are needed. i.e. If Congress acts, reforms from our Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act must be part of a FISA reform."

Reintroduced by Lofgren, Wyden, and a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers last July, that bill would require the U.S. government to get a court order compelling data brokers to disclose information as well as bar law enforcement and intelligence agencies from buying data on people in the U.S. and Americans abroad if it was obtained from a user's account or device, or deceptive practices.

Privacy rights campaigners and experts also responded to Wyden's letter with renewed calls for closing the data broker loophole.

"That data brokers can track people visiting Planned Parenthood is terrifying enough. That law enforcement agencies can simply buy this type of sensitive data—rather than getting a warrant—is even worse," said Ashley Gorski, senior staff attorney at the ACLU's National Security Project. "This Thursday, Congress must vote to close the loophole for law enforcement purchases from data brokers. The government shouldn't be able to buy its way around the Fourth Amendment."

The organizations Demand Progress and EPIC concurred in social media posts sharing Politico's reporting on the letter.

"The continued sale of our most sensitive information to and by shady data brokers not only fuels harmful surveillance advertising systems, but enables government agencies—from local police departments to state attorneys general to the FBI—to sidestep the Fourth Amendment," said EPIC counsel Sara Geoghegan in a statement. "We urgently need to rein in data brokers and enact comprehensive privacy rules to protect us from these grave harms in the post-Roe era we live in."

1 24

Federal appeals court rules emergency rooms are not required to perform life-saving abortions - Alternet.org

Some Republicans were willing to compromise on abortion ban exceptions — but activists made sure they didn’t - Alternet.org

rww 12 23

Highlights From The National Association of Christian Lawmakers Gala

frank Pavone, an anti-abortion hardliner who was kicked out of the priesthood by Pope Francis this year, says that banning abortion was “front and center throughout the day” during the recent meeting of the National Association of Christian Lawmakers, the gathering at which Speaker of the House Mike Johnson declared that God had prepared him to be a “Moses” leading America in this “Red Sea Moment.” Pavone, who reported on the conference in an article posted at Gateway Pundit and LifeNews.com, praised Johnson and other speakers at the event’s gala for highlighting efforts to ban abortion.

As voters across the country reject MAGA Republicans’ abortion bans, and GOP strategists fear the issue will hurt their electoral prospects in 2024, Johnson has publicly downplayed the priority of a national abortion ban for congressional Republicans. But, as Pavone’s report makes clear, abolishing abortion is still a priority for the religious-right movement from which Johnson emerged.

Johnson’s own track record is long and brutally anti-choice. As an anti-abortion attorney before his election to Congress, Johnson “helped draft and defend successive Louisiana laws aimed at tightly regulating abortion providers, helping make abortion increasingly inaccessible in the state even as the procedure remained technically legal,” the New York Times reported.

As an attorney at the Alliance Defending Freedom, the religious-right legal group that pushed the Trumpified Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, he represented anti-abortion extremists. When the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Johnson gleefully celebrated Louisiana’s law, tweeting, “Perform an abortion and get imprisoned at hard labor for 1-10 yrs & fined $10K-$100K.”

As a member of Congress, Johnson has sponsored multiple federal abortion ban bills, including one that would declare fertilized eggs to be constitutionally protected persons from the moment of conception. Anti-abortion strategist Robert George has argued in a Supreme Court brief that such an interpretation of the Constitution would require states to treat abortion as homicide.

Johnson has cited religious-right leaders and dominionist activists as mentors and major influences. At the NACL gala, Johnson told lawmakers, “What we’re engaged in right now is a battle between worldviews.”

Another scheduled conference speaker was Janet Porter, author of abortion-banning “heartbeat” legislation. In the lead-in to Ohio’s recent vote on a pro-choice constitutional amendment, she and her allies promoted false claims that it would abolish all limitations on abortion and tried to mobilize an anti-trans panic against the amendment. But after voters overwhelmingly approved the amendment, Porter began arguing that it had no authority over the state’s anti-abortion laws. She urged state lawmakers to ignore voters’ wishes and strip state courts of the power to enforce the constitutional amendment. Porter’s recent moves are evidence of what The Nation’s Amy Littlefield described this month as “a variety of anti-democratic schemes to prevent the expansion of abortion access.”

Meanwhile, Johnson ally and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton fought successfully in recent days to get the state Supreme Court to overrule a lower court decision allowing a woman carrying a fetus with a fatal diagnosis to get an abortion, even though being forced to carry the doomed pregnancy threatens her health and future fertility. Her lawyer has said she has left the state to get the healthcare she needs.

While religious-right groups would generally be expected to howl in protest at any suggestion that government officials meddle in internal church affairs, Pavone reported that the executive committee of the NACL unanimously passed a resolution calling for the reversal of his dismissal from the priesthood.

Fox News buried the story of a Texas woman prevented from getting an emergency abortion | Media Matters for America

aha eugenics used as cudgel to go after planned parent b/c of Sanger, but it’s the neonazi who actually want to do it?! desperate b/c abortion could lose them 2024 like 2022?

// Anti-abortion media attacked a Texas woman seeking an emergency abortion, likening the procedure to eugenics | Media Matters for America

last week, a pregnant woman named Kate Cox, whose fetus has a lethal diagnosis, sued Texas to receive a medical exception to the state’s abortion bans. Though a lower state court granted Cox’s request, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton asked the state’s Supreme Court to intervene, and the higher court paused, and later revoked, the decision. Anti-abortion media responded to the lawsuit by demonizing all forms of abortion, with some claiming that terminating a pregnancy based on such a fatal diagnosis amounts to eugenics.

## A Texas woman who was granted an emergency abortion after a lethal fetal diagnosis later had her exemption revoked

- Kate Cox asked a Texas state court to grant her an exception to the state’s abortion ban after her fetus was diagnosed with a fatal genetic disorder and doctors informed Cox the disorder, Trisomy 18, also puts her own life at risk.Cox reported visiting the emergency room three times within a month during her pregnancy due to “severe cramping and unidentifiable fluid leaks.” Texas law allows abortions only when “a life-threatening physical condition ... places the woman in danger of death or a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function.” The Center for Reproductive Health noted that Cox was “seeking an emergency abortion to protect her health, life, and future fertility,” especially as she faces greater health risks due to two previous cesarean sections. Texas Tribune, [12/7/23; USA Today, 12/6/23; Center for Reproductive Rights, 12/5/23]

- 95% percent of pregnancies with fetuses diagnosed with Trisomy 18, or Edwards syndrome, will end in a miscarriage or in stillbirth. According to the Cleveland Clinic: “Life expectancy for children diagnosed with Edwards syndrome is short due to several life-threatening complications of the condition. Children who survive past their first year may face severe intellectual challenges.” Cleveland Clinic, accessed [12/11/23]

- On December 8, the Texas Supreme Court paused a temporary order from a lower court that would have allowed Cox to receive an abortion. The state’s attorney general, Ken Paxton, who petitioned the state’s Supreme Court to put the lower court order on hold, also threatened legal action against any hospital that complied with the lower court’s decision to grant Cox an abortion. The New Republic, [12/7/23; CNN, 12/9/23]

- On Monday, the Center for Reproductive Rights confirmed that Cox had to travel out of state for abortion care due to compounding health risks. In a statement, the president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, who represented Cox, noted that she had “been in and out of the emergency room and she couldn’t wait any longer.” Jezebel, [12/11/23]

- Hours after the Center for Reproductive Rights announced that Cox had traveled out of state for abortion care, the Texas Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s ruling, revoking Cox’s exemption to receive an abortion. CNN, [12/12/23]

## Anti-abortion media figures are using the story to demonize abortion and criticize the emergency order temporarily granted to Cox

- Kristan Hawkins, leader of the anti-abortion group Students for Life of America, decried the situation as “eugenics and selfishness.” Hawkins mocked Cox’s motivations for seeking an abortion and described her thinking as, “I don't have to have to watch my child die in front of me, so I'm going to pay someone to kill her now.” Twitter/X, [12/7/23]

- Deirdre Cooper, a policy analyst with the anti-abortion group Texas Alliance for Life, said terminating a pregnancy because of fetal abnormalities amounts to “discrimination.”“Once given a fatal diagnosis, parents are now on a unique journey of preparing for the death of a beloved child,” Cooper told the Houston Chronicle. “But abortion robs that child of the chance at life, no matter how short.” Houston Chronicle, [12/7/23]

- Anti-abortion activist Abby Johnson: “A child is worthy of life even when its biological parents don’t want it.” She continued, “A child is worthy of life when they have special needs. Abortion is always wrong because every child is worthy of life.” Twitter/X, [12/8/23]

- Lauren Muzyka, president and CEO of the anti-abortion group Sidewalk Advocates for Life, praised the Texas Supreme Court for affirming that “there's never a reason to directly kill a baby to preserve mom's life.” She also wrote, “Trisomy 18 is not a reason to murder a child.” Twitter/X, [12/9/23]

- Family Research Council President Tony Perkins called Cox’s situation “tragic” but asserted that “allowing an abortionist to kill her [the fetus] will only magnify the pain and suffering this family is experiencing.” Twitter/X, [12/11/23]

- Anti-abortion outlet Live Action News argued that while fetuses diagnosed with Trisomy 18 often do not survive birth, “every single child is a gift and their lives should be honored with love rather than being tossed aside as unworthy.”Twitter/X, [12/7/23]

- After a lower state court ruled in Cox’s favor — a ruling that was later put on hold — anti-abortion outlet Life News published an article titled “Texas Judge rules a baby can be killed in abortion just because the baby is disabled.”The article also claimed that there was “significant question about whether the baby has Trisomy 18 in the first place … because prenatal tests often fail.” Life News, [12/7/23]

- Live Action founder Lila Rose: “Very sick or disabled unborn babies don’t deserve the abortionists lethal needle or forceps—they deserve medical care, & in the cases needed, neonatal palliative care.” Twitter/X, [12/10/23]
- Texas Alliance for Life posted: “Center for Reproductive Rights advocating for aborting disabled babies is like Margaret Sanger saying we need to exterminate minorities and aim for a cleaner race. Eugenics by any other name is still eugenics.” Twitter/X, [12/9/23]

- EWTN Global Catholic Network radio host Grazie Pozo Christie called abortion “assassination” while also acknowledging that Trisomy 18 is “incompatible with life.” “There’s another option, which is to end the pregnancy through a delivery and love the baby until the end,” she added. Twitter/X, [12/7/23]

## Anti-abortion media’s reaction to the story follows decades of likening abortion to eugenics

- The anti-abortion movement has long accused Planned Parenthood, the country’s largest provider of abortions, of supporting eugenics. In the early 1900s, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood’s parent organization, rallied behind eugenics, but Planned Parenthood has publicly denounced Sanger and her views about race and eugenics for years. Media Matters, [10/3/22]

- After the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, some figures in right-wing media claimed that pro-choice advocates had a “eugenics mentality” and that they were “proposing … eugenics.” Media Matters, [6/24/22]

- When Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen commented that overturning Roe v. Wade “would have damaging effects on the economy and would set women back decades,” right-wing media figures claimed that Yellen was advocating for eugenics and “getting rid of the undesirables.’” Media Matters, [5/13/22]

### Conservative media figures are using homophobia and misogyny to attack surrogacy and IVF

:{:{12/06/23 }:

### After a GOP food fight over a national abortion ban, right-wing media twist the truth on Democrats’ abortion stances

:{:{09/11/23 }:

### Right-wing media are bickering over a potential national abortion ban

:{:{08/25/23 }:

12 23

woman had $ to go out of state and keep pvt but chose to stay and fight

sent ltr to 3 hosp threatened civil and crim charges after he LOST in ct?!

texas-attorney-general-threatens-to-prosecute-over-court-ordered-emergency-abortion-of-unviable-fetus-doctors-say-endangers-the-mother

Anti-abortion and right-wing media figures explain away GOP election losses by asserting a 15-week ban isn’t extreme enough | Media Matters for America

11 23 ohio 7th state refererendum on abort, 7 wins 57%despite aug 60% BS

paxton

https://www.alternet.org/texas-blocks-order-complicated-pregnancies/

mma 10 23

Ahead of Ohio’s Issue 1 vote, a religious conservative group with ties to right-wing media is sowing confusion about the ballot measure

- On November 7, Ohioans will vote on whether to add an amendment to the state constitution that would protect the right to abortion up to the point of viability and grant the express right to make one’s own reproductive health decisions. Currently, abortion in Ohio is restricted after 22 weeks, but that could soon change as the state Supreme Court is expected to rule on the legality of a six-week ban, without exceptions for rape or incest, passed by the Ohio legislature. 19th News, [10/16/23]
- The conservative Christian legal advocacy group American Policy Roundtable has pushed misinformation about Issue 1 across different platforms as part of its “See the Language” campaign. The nonprofit touts itself as being “committed to reaching all people with the message of liberty anchored in Judeo-Christian principles.” See the Language, accessed [10/25/23; American Policy Roundtable, accessed 10/24/23]
- The American Policy Roundtable has several ties to right-wing media figures and anti-abortion media. Guests on the nonprofit’s podcast, The Public Square, have included anti-abortion activist Abby Johnson and evangelical radio host Eric Metaxas, while American Policy Roundtable’s President and CEO Dave Zanotti has appeared on Choose Life Radio and on Bob Frantz’s conservative radio program. American Policy Roundtable Vice President Rob Walgate has also guest hosted on Frantz’s program. American Policy Roundtable, *The Public Square*, [10/12/23, 1/28/20; Podchaser, 10/13/22, 6/27/22]
- Major funders of the American Policy Roundtable have also donated to other nefarious right-wing causes. Some donors of the group have also contributed to crisis pregnancy centers, the anti-LGBTQ group Focus on the Family, and the Alliance Defending Freedom, the legal organization currently challenging the FDA approval of a major abortion pill. The Jay And Linda Sedwick Foundation via ProPublica, accessed [10/23/23; Scotford Foundation via ProPublica, accessed 10/23/23; The Brocker Foundation via ProPublica, accessed 10/23/23]
## The American Policy Roundtable’s See the Language initiative has spread false claims about Issue 1 through multiple digital platforms and directly to voters’ mailboxes
- According to the Meta Ad Library, the American Policy Roundtable has spent at least $90,000 on advertising through its See the Language accounts since September 28. Together, these 35 ads on Facebook and Instagram have accumulated at least 3.5 million impressions. Meta Ad Library, accessed [10/26/23]
- Since the beginning of October, the American Policy Roundtable has spent at least $120,000 on Google ads related to See the Language. Google promoted 28 ads from See the Language, which were collectively viewed at least 9.9 million times. Google Ad Transparency Center, accessed [10/26/23]
- In addition to advertising on Google, See the Language has its own YouTube channel pushing misinformation about Issue 1. At least three of the videos on the channel heavily feature the anti-abortion activist Abby Johnson and have amassed 1.4 million views. YouTube, accessed [10/24/23]
- The American Policy Roundtable also sent some Ohio voters physical mailers rife with false claims regarding Issue 1. A flier sent out to various Ohio residents shows an annotated version of the proposed abortion amendment that makes outrageous claims that certain language in Issue 1 could allow “gender selection abortions,” “harvesting body parts,” “chemical castration,” “trans surgeries on minors,” and “cloning.” Cincinnati.com, [9/17/23; Reddit, 9/8/23; American Policy Roundtable, accessed 10/25/23]
## No, Issue 1 will not strip parental rights
- In a Meta ad, a YouTube short, and the paper flier circulated by the American Policy Roundtable, See the Language stirred fears that parents will lose their right to a say in their children’s health care decisions. The YouTube short asserted that “legislators, lawmakers, political philosophers, and parents find this language very troubling in what this would mean for parental rights and parental consent in the state of Ohio.” American Policy Roundtable, accessed [10/25/23; Meta Ad Library, accessed 10/25/23; YouTube, 9/5/23]
- According to the Ohio Capital Journal, “Attacks on parental rights do not appear in the amendment.” Constitutional law expert Tracy Thomas, who has “studied reproductive rights cases in Ohio and nationwide,” stated, “I don’t think Issue 1 would affect parent’s rights at all,” and noted that “parental rights have consistently been retained” over time. Ohio Capital Journal, [10/16/23]
## No, Issue 1 will not legalize “unlimited abortion”
- The American Policy Roundtable falsely asserted that Issue 1 would open the door to “unlimited abortion through all nine months” in a recent YouTube video. See the Language’s mailer similarly claimed that the amendment would allow for abortion “throughout all nine months,” while another YouTube short decried that the amendment would “lock and enshrine abortion into the state constitution for any and every reason through all nine months of pregnancy.” YouTube,[, 9/5/23; American Policy Roundtable, accessed 10/25/23]
- The ballot measure itself states that abortion “may be prohibited after fetal viability.”The Akron Beacon Journal also wrote it was a “gross misrepresentation of the amendment” to imply that the law allows “abortions up to the day before birth.” Akron Beacon Journal, [10/13/23]
## No, Issue 1 does not enshrine gender-affirming care in the Ohio Constitution
- Messaging from the American Policy Roundtable baselessly suggested that Issue 1 could allow for “trans surgeries on minors.” In a video that has garnered more than 1 million views, See the Language’s YouTube channel asks the question, “Are gender-altering surgeries reproductive decisions?” The ballot measure states, “Every individual has a right to make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions, including but not limited to decisions on: contraception, fertility treatment, continuing one’s own pregnancy, miscarriage care, and abortion.” American Policy Roundtable, accessed [10/25/23; YouTube,]
- The Associated Press cited legal experts claiming that “it’s a stretch to suggest that [reproductive decisions] also means gender-related health care.” The Ohio Capital Journal also wrote that the amendment “has nothing to do with” issues related to “puberty blockers” or gender-affirming care. The Associated Press, [10/11/23; Ohio Capital Journal, 10/23/23]

ohio super maj and all const officers? recently passed law no election in aug, then 180 to jam thru prop to derail 700k sigs fall election.

2nd big midwest abortion loss after kansas

no lnx

Ohio’s GOP secretary of state brutally mocked after his amendment goes down in flames

Brad Reedand Raw Story August 09, 2023

Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose put a lot of political capital on backing "Issue 1," a ballot initiative that would have raised the threshold for future ballot initiatives to succeed from 50 percent to 60 percent.

Voters in Ohio subsequently rejected the measure by 14 points -- but that didn't stop LaRose from issuing a defiant statement blaming out-of-state spending for the loss.

"We were dramatically outspent by dark money billionaires from California to New York, and the giant 'for sale' sign still hangs on Ohio's constitution," he complained. "Ohioans will see the devastating impact of this vote soon enough."

Many critics were quick to mock LaRose for his statement, including Rachel Petri, the campaign manager for Sen. Sherrod Brown, who wrote on Twitter that "you can't spell 'a loser' without 'LaRose.'"

Atlantic editor Ronald Brownstein, meanwhile, noted that LaRose's defiant statement didn't even mention the role that protecting abortion rights played in the amendment's defeat, which he said reflected Republicans' "uncertainty on how to handle abortion backlash."

Shannon Freshour, a Democrat who is running for Congress in Rep. Jim Jordan's (R-OH) district, celebrated the win and argued LaRose got exactly what he deserved.

"It's best to fight on the side of history, of democracy, of the people," she wrote. "Thankfully Ohio understands that."

Former Democratic Ohio candidate Paul Filippelli, meanwhile, mocked LaRose's suggestion that keeping the old ballot initiative process would put Ohio's state constitution at risk.

"Frank LaRose hates the Ohio Constitution and thinks it has a "for sale" sign on it because it... allows voters to make decisions about how our state is governed," he wrote.

And Tristan Rader, a progressive city councilman from Lakewood, Ohio, gave LaRose a sarcastic "thank you" for blowing his election.

"Thank you for your incompetent leadership on all the worst issues," he wrote. "Keep it up!"

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

GOP tries to keep abortion rights off ballot after major losses: 'Can’t win, so they cheat' ›

'Corrupt': OH Secretary of State admits proposal would avert abortion rights after denying for months ›

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose launches GOP Senate bid ›

court > AG 7 23

https://www.alternet.org/missouri-supreme-court-abortion-ballot/

rww 8 23

as Right Wing Watch reported last week, anti-choice Republican politicians in Ohio have put a democracy-limiting initiative on the ballot in August with the goal of stopping Ohio voters from passing a constitutional amendment protecting legal access to abortion.

In a desperate attempt to thwart the will of Ohio voters, who support access to legal abortion by a wide margin, anti-choice activists are trying to change the state constitution before voters can pass a constitutional amendment protecting legal access to abortion that will appear on the ballot later this year.

For over 100 years, the Ohio constitution has required a simple majority to amendment the document and in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision striking down Roe v Wade, reproductive rights advocates in Ohio gathered enough signatures to place an amendment protecting “the right to make reproductive health care decisions” on the ballot in November.

Fearing that this effort will easily pass, Republican legislators are hypocritically attempting to derail the plan by holding a special election in August on State Issue 1 that would require a 60 percent supermajority vote to amend the state’s constitution.

It is no small irony that proponents of Issue 1 argue that the current process for amending the state constitution is too easy given that Issue 1 itself requires a simple “majority yes vote … for the amendment to pass.” Terrified that voters will protect reproductive rights by passing a constitutional amendment via majority vote, anti-choice activists are seeking to commandeer the process by making the constitution harder to amend by passing a constitutional amendment via majority vote.

Right-wing anti-choice activist Janet Porter, who is based in Ohio, made it clear during a recent appearance on “Save The Nation,” a daily program hosted by Christian nationalist Jason Rapert, that her activism on behalf of passing Issue 1 is all about protecting the anti-choice legislation she has helped enact in the state.

“In 1989, I worked to pass the Woman’s Right To Know law. That’s informed consent; it had a 24 hour waiting period,” Porter said. “Then we passed a fetal homicide law. We passed parental consent. We passed the heartbeat law. [We passed] the nation’s first ban on partial-birth abortion.”

“If we don’t protect those laws with this vote by raising the bar, that means come November—if they spend enough blood money, they confuse enough voters—they can undo and wipe out every pro-life law that we have ever passed,” Porter warned. “Everything that I’ve ever done in my life in this state, it will be gone like that.”

“This is what we’re talking about,” she declared. “Protecting every law we’ve passed.”

[[ ===

AHA GOP evang grifter BS boosts unwanted [teen] pregnancy, then they outlaw abortion, then go for birth control?!

extort trump GOTV --> scotus supermajority LEO

no lnx many

Trump’s Pro-Abstinence HHS Appointee Fits an Unnerving ‘Pattern’

Jennifer Gerson Uffalussy·Contributing Writer

June 7, 2017

On Tuesday, the Trump administration quietly appointed Valerie J. Huber as chief of staff for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Health within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Huber most recently served as president and CEO of Ascend, an organization focused on promoting abstinence-only education in schools. She was previously the abstinence-education coordinator for the state of Ohio, where she oversaw abstinence programs for more than 100,000 students per year.

Valerie J. Huber

In a memo to HHS staffers by Acting Health Secretary Doug Wright, he called Ascend “a Washington DC-based professional association that champions youth to make healthy life and relationship decisions.”

But abstinence-only education — or what many on the far right call “sexual risk avoidance” — is seen by many health advocates as ineffective, and frequently leave out certain demographics of young people that are especially vulnerable, including LGBTQ teens and pregnant and parenting teens.

Why Experts Are Concerned

Diana Thu-Thao Rhodes, the director of public policy for Advocates for Youth, says there is a pattern not only of Trump appointees being named to offices whose very mission they seem to oppose, but also one emerging among HHS appointees specifically who are united in their opposition to contraception.

“There is definitely in HHS and the Trump administration a focus on rolling back birth control coverage and access to contraception in general,” Thu-Thao Rhodes says. “And yet another pattern of this administration is that they don’t see contraception as a preventative service and integral to women’s health. There’s a pattern here of people being appointed to key positions by the administration who think this way.”

Echoes Leslie Kantor, PhD, MPH, and the Vice President of Education at Planned Parenthood Federation of America, “At Planned Parenthood, we are very concerned about an increasing number of anti-women’s health, anti-sex education, anti-science appointments in the Trump administration.”

Last month, Teresa Manning was tapped as deputy assistant secretary for population affairs at HHS, the role that oversees the administration of Title X, the national family planning program. In a 2003 interview, Manning stated on the record that she believes that contraception doesn’t work. Manning has also criticized the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists for recommending that prescribers offer advance prescriptions of the morning-after pill and has called emergency contraception “medically irresponsible” and “anti-family.”

Charmaine Yoest, Trump’s appointee to serve as assistant secretary of public affairs for HHS, is opposed to intrauterine devices (IUDs) as a form of birth control and has falsely said that they have “life-ending properties.” As noted in a memo circulated to Senate Democrats from the staff of the minority members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee earlier this week, “IUDs do not work after implantation and therefore cannot end pregnancies. Additionally, recent data from the Guttmacher Institute found that unplanned pregnancies are at a 30-year low, largely a result of an increase in the use of long-acting reversible contraceptives like IUDs. The [Affordable Care Act] has been critical in increasing access to IUDs by removing cost barriers for women seeking contraceptive services.”

HHS Secretary Tom Pricehas also spoken on the record about his opposition to the contraception mandate of the ACA, telling a reporter in 2012 that “there’s not one woman” who does not have access to birth control — and thus does not need it guaranteed as part of her insurance coverage at no cost. Price is also vehemently outspoken on his opposition to federal funding for Planned Parenthood and his support of seeing the organization dropped as not just a Medicaid provider, but also a Title X provider. Planned Parenthood serves more than 40 percent of Title X patients, including teens, despite making up just 13 percent of all Title X health centers.

And Dr. Scott Gottlieb, Trump’s appointee to head the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), has repeatedly insisted in his own words that the contraception mandate of the ACA harms women’s health.

“These appointments have an enormous impact on the lives and future success of young people in our nation,” Ginny Ehrlich, CEO of The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, tells Yahoo Beauty in a statement. “We hope these officials will exercise their responsibilities in a way that builds on past successes in reducing teen and unplanned pregnancy, rather than going backwards.”

Bipartisan Support for Comprehensive Sex Ed

According to the Guttmacher Institute, research “suggests that strategies that promote abstinence-only outside of marriage while withholding information about contraceptives do not stop or even delay sex. Moreover, abstinence-only programs can actually place young people at increased risk of pregnancy and STIs.”

“The point of sex education is that you want to get to young people before they become sexually active. You don’t want them to get critical information after the fact,” Kantor says. “Good sex ed lays the groundwork throughout childhood and the teen years so that when you’re in the situation when you’re in a relationship and navigating and negotiating having sex for the first time, you are well prepared and have all the information you need to protect yourself.”

Adds Kantor, “There was a very, very important change in the country in2010 when for the first time, rather than pouring money into abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, money started to be appropriated for evidence-based approaches — approaches found to help young people change their behavior either by delaying sex or by using condoms and contraception when having sex. We don’t want to see things roll backwards to the bad old days of abstinence-only-until-marriage education.”

January 2017 polling by the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy found that 85 percent of American adults — including 89 percent of Democrats and 75 percent of Republicans — favor maintaining federal funding for the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program and the Personal Responsibility Education Program, both of which utilize evidence-based, comprehensive sex education curricula.

Furthermore, the National Campaign’s polling found that 79 percent of Americans — including 81 percent of Democrats and 73 percent of Republicans — believe that teens should receive more information about abstinence and birth control and sexually transmitted infection protection.

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

The Christian Right is winning at the Supreme Court, but not in ... ›

The Religious Right Has Never Been Smaller or More Powerful ›

The Rise of Spirit Warriors on the Christian Right | The New Republic ›

https://www.alternet.org/amazon-google-proving-complicit-abortion/

an 6 23

thanks to the United States Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling that established money as a constitutionally protected form of free speech, countless dollars have flowed into political campaigns, candidates, and causes.

On Saturday, The Guardian reported that Amazon, Google, and other giant companies have waded into the fight over reproductive freedom. The British outlet revealed that these entities have been making financial contributions to an organization that has bankrolled right-wing lawmakers in North Carolina who voted to overturn Democratic Governor Roy Cooper's veto of the state's twelve-week abortion ban.

"The RepublicanState Leadership Committee (RSLC) received donations of tens of thousands of dollars each from corporations including Comcast, Intuit, Wells Fargo, Amazon, Bank of America and Google last year.The contributions were made in the months after Politico published a leaked supreme court decision indicating that the court would end the right to nationwide abortion access," The Guardian learned from an analysis conducted by the Center for Political Accountability (CPA).

"Google contributed $45,000 to the RSLCafter the leak of the draft decision, according to the CPA's review of the tax filings," The Guardianexplained. "Others contributed even more in the months after the leak, includingAmazon ($50,000), Intuit ($100,000), and Comcast ($147,000)."

The paper noted that "although these companies did not directly give these vast sums to North Carolina's anti-abortion lawmakers, the CPA's analysis is a case study in how corporate contributions to organizations such as the RSLC can end up being funneled into anti-abortion causes. When Republican state legislators successfully overturned a veto from the Democratic governor last month to pass the upcoming abortion ban, nine of lawmakers voting to overturn the veto had received campaign contributions from a group with links to the RSLC."

Also pointed out by The Guardianis that "these donations are evidence that corporations are proving to be complicit in the broader movement to limit abortion rights, the CPA non-profit argues, even as many of these companies publicly tout women's empowerment and employee access to healthcare."

Moreover, these businesses have vested interests in both sides of the debate. Per The Guardian, "The companies which donated to the RSLC are also large donors to Democratic political groups, and tech giants such as Google and Amazon tend to spend millions each year more broadly on lobbying efforts."

an raw 5 23 thom h

no lnx

you’ve probably never heard of Anthony Comstock, a Civil War Union soldier and New York Postmaster, who died in 1915. You need to learn about him and his legacy, however, as his long fingers are about to reach up out of the grave and wrap themselves around the necks of every American woman of childbearing years.

Anthony Comstock was a mama’s boy who hated sex. His mother died when he was 10 years old and the shock apparently never left him; women who didn’t live up to her ideal were his open and declared enemies, as were pornography, masturbation, and abortion. He was so ignorant of sex and reproduction that he believed a visible human-like fetus developed “within seconds” of sexual intercourse.

Comstock spent decades scouring the country collecting pornography, which he enthusiastically shared with men in Congress, and harassing “loose women.” For example, when he visited a belly-dancing show (then a new craze) in Chicago at the Cairo Theatre during the World’s Fair of 1893, he demanded the show be shut down.

As Amy Sohn, who wrote a brilliant Comstock biography titled The Man Who Hated Women, noted:

Its language with regard to abortion is not at all ambiguous:

“Every description calculated to induce or incite a person to so use or apply any such article, instrument, substance, drug, medicine, or thing—

“Is declared to be nonmailable matter and shall not be conveyed in the mails or delivered from any post office or by any letter carrier.” (emphasis mine)

The penalty is also not ambiguous. Persons mailing information about abortion, or drugs or devices to produce an abortion:

The Biden administration argues that the Comstock Act of 1873 was set aside almost a century ago.

“Such a construction,” the court wrote, “would prevent mailing to or by a physician of any drug or mechanical device ‘adapted’ for contraceptive or abortifacient uses, although the physician desired to use or to prescribe it for proper medical purposes.”

The law has been amended by Congress four times (in 1955, 1958, 1971, and 1994), but the language above was never struck because legislators figured the appeals court’s ruling rendered it nugatory.

But don’t tell that to Trump’s appointee Texas District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of Amarillo, who ruled last month that Mifepristone was to be banned nationwide: he based a large part of his decision on the plain language of the Comstock Act.

And don’t tell it to the three rightwing judges hearing an appeal this week of Kacsmaryk’s decision before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

When the Biden administration’s attorney argued that Kacsmaryk’s decision was “unprecedented,”Circuit Judge James Ho — also a Trump appointee, who personally swore his good friend Kacsmaryk into his office — interrupted her with a curt snap, saying:

“I guess I’m just wondering why not just focus on the facts of this case rather than have this sort of ‘FDA can do no wrong’ theme.”

The appeals court, made up of a George W. Bush appointee and two Trump appointees, earlier had ruled in their preliminary finding to hear the case that they disagreed with the Biden administration’s assertion that, to quote the three judges, “the [Comstock] law does not mean what it says it means.”

When the Biden interpretation of the Comstock Act was brought up in oral arguments, the Bush appointee, Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, said there is “some disagreement” about whether previous court rulings actually invalidated the law.

Republican members of Congress agree, and want the Comstock Act enforced nationwide.

In a letter sent to CVS (among other pharmacy chains), Mississippi Republican Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith and eight other Republican senators (Lankford, Daines, Braun, Rubio, Marshall, Risch, Crapo and Blackburn) wrote that the Biden interpretation (and that of Congress in 1955, 1958, 1971, and 1994) is wrong.

“We write to express our support and agreement with 21 State Attorneys General,” they wrote “who have reminded you that Federal law in 18 U.S.C. 1461-1462 [the Comstock Act] criminalizes nationwide using the mail, or interstate shipment by any express company or common carrier, to send or receive any drug that is ‘designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion.’”

The 1930 court ruling that lawmakers and judges had, for over 90 years, believed only applied the Comstock Act to items that were illegal (like child porn), she wrote:

The lawyer for Republicans defending Kacsmaryk’s ruling before the Fifth Circuit, Erin Hawley (the wife of Missouri Republican Senator Josh Hawley), went so far as to assert before the court that even physicians and pharmacies shouldn’t be able to receive Mifipristone or other drugs that could produce an abortion via the mail, FedEx, or UPS:

If Hawley’s interpretation is ultimately adopted by the Supreme Court, all abortions in the United States would be ended when drugs and suction and surgical devices designed specifically for the procedure can no longer be shipped to hospitals, clinics, or physicians’ offices.

And this is no idle threat.

Given how all three judges on the Fifth Circuit reacted to this week’s arguments, most court observers believe they’ll vote to sustain Judge Kacsmaryk’s ruling and ban Mifipristone nationwide, perhaps even outlawing its legal shipment to pharmacies for other uses like helping with incomplete miscarriages.

Other drugs and surgical devices used for abortions are almost certainly next.

“If a future president were to enforce these federal statutes, then they could shut down every abortion facility in America.”

Such a ruling by the Fifth Circuit will kick the whole mess up to the Supreme Court, where six hardcore rightwing Catholics (Gorsuch attends his wife’s church but was raised Catholic) are gleefully rubbing their hands in anticipation.

This battle promises to be long and hard-fought, and if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Fifth Circuit’s anticipated decision the only solution will be for Congress to overturn the Comstock Act itself.

And that’s unlikely to happen unless or until Democrats can take back the House, hold the White House, and gain a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate in the 2024 election. The stakes couldn’t be higher.

Several states are now stockpiling Mifipristone in anticipation of just such a dystopian outcome. Families with women and girls of childbearing age may want to do the same.

Forewarned is forearmed.

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

President Joe Biden should 'forcefully resist' TX judge’s 'medically unsound' abortion pill ruling: columnist ›

Texas judge overseeing abortion pill case filed by Josh Hawley's wife donated to his Senate campaign: report ›

The abortion pill, abortion bans and Republican policies that kill ›

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

If mifepristone gets banned, medical abortion works with misoprostol ... ›

How the 'abortion pill' works, according to an expert | CNN ›

Beyond the 'abortion pill': Real stories about mifepristone : Shots ... ›

desantis signed 6 wk abortion at 11 pm, did not speak if it the next morning at LIBERTY U?!

4 23 rww

April 20, 2023

David McAfee @ Raw Story:Judge who denied abortion to teen over bad grades may become next Florida Supreme Court justice.
Kate Riga @ Talking Points Memo: Major Anti-Abortion Organization Attacks Trump For Wanting To Leave It To States.
Josh Dawsey and Amy Gardner @ The Washington Post: Top GOP lawyer decries ease of campus voting in private pitch to RNC.
Sara Murray @ CNN: My Pillow CEO Mike Lindell ordered to follow through with $5 million payment to expert who debunked his false election data.
Nick Corasaniti @ The New York Times: A Super PAC Targets Greene, Gaetz, Boebert and Others on the Far Right.
Justin Baragona @ The Daily Beast: Fox News Parts Ways With MAGA Blowhard Dan Bongino.

Tags: Cleta Mitchell Dan Bongino Jared Smith Mike Lindell Round-Up Susan B. Anthony List

yikes

aha2 ghost dance god would extract enemies, and bullets no harm; trump says i am your retribution against enemy who took away your country/ hegemony; retaliation armageddon end times civil war Earth2

aha social media thus amp ?! , but trump rally is call and response? dream logic // magical thinking?

https://www.alternet.org/gop-voters-2659695517/

an 3 23

no lnx

author Jeff Sharlet has spent years interviewing conservatives and found many unassuming Americans are ready and eager for violence against their political enemies.

Sharlet's latest book, The Undertow: Scenes from a Slow Civil War, is the result of more than a dozen years of reporting on the religious right, compiling numerous interviews conducted throughout the Midwest and Great Plains, and he's more worried than ever about the possibility of civil war, reported The Guardian.

"I’ve been writing about the right for a long time," he told the newspaper. "I’m always interested in the margins of things that tell us about what’s happening at the center. An undertow is a metaphor for that, for the force that’s been pulling us to this place for a long time. If you’d asked me 10 years ago if I ever thought another civil war would be possible in the United States, I would have said no. But to think so [now] is to not understand that the right in America is as dangerous as it is."

He cited a "nice-looking" family he met near Eau Claire, Wisconsin, who seemed like "ordinary" conservatives, as the newspaper described them, but harbored bloodthirsty fantasies rooted in extreme conservative politics.

"[The father said] he had a 'Let’s go Brandon' sticker because he didn’t want to swear around his son," Sharlet said. "They’re a middle-class dad and mom. They were always gun people, but not a lot of guns. Now they’re up to 36, now they are arming up. The father had always been anti-abortion. But now it was like a dream had moved into his and his wife’s mind. He described, in incredibly violent detail, the process of abortion. Then he described, in incredibly violent detail, the punishment he thought he and others were going to give to abortion doctors. They were ready for executions."

The current political moment was rooted in a decades-old struggle against fascism, and Sharlet said Donald Trump, intentionally or instinctively, used its "dream logic" to spellbind his followers, who fill in the unfinished thoughts in his pronouncements with their own beliefs -- and that creates the illusion that he's speaking their truth into existence.

"The free association that happens at Trump’s rallies, the ways people make connections that make no sense – it has dream logic," Sharlet said. "One minute, a scary man is crawling into the window to rape your wife, and then the next minute we’re laughing at windmills, and then the next minute we’re sad for the birds that were killed by windmills. And then, in the next minute, we’re yelling, 'Lock her up.'"

:{"This is dream logic, and there’s vanity in it, right?":{ Sharlet added. “'I will interpret what they’re saying and I will bend it.' It’s the vanity of the base, the vanity of the mob, the aggregate grotesque imagination of power.}::{ It becomes a spinning whirlpool that pulls more and more people in. These are people for whom reality is not enough."}::{}:

The illusion that's created for Trump and his followers feels interactive and very real to them, Sharlet said, and that's where the twice-impeached former president gains his power.

"This is why the right feels they are more democratic than the left," he said. "The intellectual rightwingers are like, 'F*ck democracy, we don’t need it.' But the everyday people, they’re like, 'This is the most democratic I’ve ever felt. I am not only receiving – I receive, I interpret and then I transmit back.'"}:

:{:{Sharlet sees a similar dynamic at work within the anti-abortion movement}::{, which the left sees as an effort to control women's bodies, but the right sees as a cause so righteous that violence is necessary.}:

"Yes, the project is misogynist to the core," he said. "But it is not experienced as such by many on the right. Once you make that move, that we’re talking about children, what kind of person are you if you don’t want to save that child?"}:

"It’s astonishing there hasn’t been more violence," Sharlet added. "I think we’ve had a shield from that violence for a long time and now that shield … I sound like Jerry Falwell saying the hand of God is being removed from America."

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

Ron DeSantis sending 'very dangerous sign' to GOP voters — and Trump’s worried: religious scholar ›

NY Post's editorial board delivers scorching op-ed urging GOP voters to move on from 'unhinged' Trump ›

GOP voters have bought into an 'apocalyptic, grotesquely distorted' view of 'Blue America': Paul Krugman ›

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

Voters of color are a big reason Trump leads the GOP primary | CNN ... ›

Trump's Potential Indictment Could Alienate Some G.O.P. Voters in ... ›

Latino GOP Voters Embrace Culture War & New AI Makes Disinfo ... ›

brett k kacz

https://www.alternet.org/supreme-court-abortion-2659833629/

retaliation for mil abortion, woke dod?! no officers confirm

https://www.alternet.org/abortion-2659709091/

21? RAGA, did not sell in 2-3 states where legal

ca gov newsom 54m$

https://www.alternet.org/abortion-2659565246/

https://www.alternet.org/texas-wrongful-death-lawsuit-abortion/

no lnx an 3 23

'Absurd and inflammatory': TX activists condemn 'outrageous' wrongful death lawsuit over abortion medication

Maya Boddie March 11, 2023

A Texas man has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against three women for allegedly assisting his now-ex-wife with acquiring abortion medication, and activists are calling the move "outrageous," The Associated Press (AP) reports.

Per AP, Marcus Silva of Galveston County "alleges assisting in a self-administered abortion is tantamount to aiding a murder," and is pursuing a $1 million settlement.

In favor of Silva's legal action, Texas GOP Rep. Briscoe Cain, said, "Anyone involved in distributing or manufacturing abortion pills will be sued into oblivion."

READ MORE: Women denied abortions sue Texas to affirm exceptions to the laws

The Texas Tribune reports:

Joanna Grossman, a law professor at SMU Dedman School of Law, said this lawsuit is 'absurd and inflammatory.' Since the pregnant patient is protected from prosecution, there is no underlying cause of action to bring a wrongful death suit in a self-managed abortion, she said.

"But this is going to cause such fear and chilling that it doesn’t matter whether [Mitchell] is right," Grossman said. "Who is going to want to help a friend find an abortion if there is some chance that their text messages are going to end up in the news?

She continued, "And maybe they're going to get sued, and maybe they’re going to get arrested, and it’s going to get dropped eventually, but in the meantime, they will have been terrified."

AP reports:

Lawsuits challenging abortion restrictions have arisen across the U.S. as clinics have shuttered in Republican-dominated states. Earlier this week in Texas — which has one of the strictest bans in the country, outlawing the procedure in nearly every case with the exception of medical emergencies — five women who said they were denied abortions even when pregnancy endangered their lives sued the state.

READ MORE: GOP senator vows to 'make abortion unthinkable'

"This is an outrageous attempt to scare people from getting abortion care and intimidate those who support their friends, family, and community in their time of need," Autumn Katz, a Center for Reproductive Rights lawyer, said. "The extremists behind this lawsuit are twisting the law and judicial system to threaten and harass people seeking essential care and those who help them."

READ MORE: Federal judge says there may still be a constitutional right to abortion: report

Associated Press' full report is available at this link. Texas Tribune's full report is here.

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

'No basis in medical science': 12 states sue FDA over abortion pill restrictions ›

How 'the most lawless jurist in the country' could ban medical abortions 'in all 50 states': journalists ›

Women denied abortions sue Texas to affirm exceptions to the laws ›

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

Five Women Sue Texas Over the State's Abortion Ban - The New ... ›

A Preview of the Dangerous Future of Abortion Bans — Texas ... ›

Texas trigger law making abortion a felony goes into effect | The ... ›

Report typos and corrections to: feedback@alternet.org.

https://boingboing.net/2023/03/06/walgreens-wont-sell-abortion-pills-in-red-states-even-where-it-is-legal.html

an 2 23 maya

Preacher and former GOP Arkansas lawmaker, Jason Rapert's organization, the National Association of Christian Lawmakers (NACL) is leading the charge on influencing the enactment of laws that enforce Christian nationalist ideology in state legislatures across the country, Rolling Stone reports.

Per Rolling Stone, as the "first-of-its-kind organization" since the United States' inception, NACL specifically pushes "biblical" bills — legislation that cannot be identified as "mere stunts or messaging," but "dark, freedom-limiting bills that, in some cases, have become law."

Additionally, the former lawmaker noted that the organization is at "'the forefront of the battles to end abortion in the individual states' and also seeks to drive queer Americans back into the closet." He said, "for far too long, we have allowed one political party in our nation to hold up Sodom and Gomorrah as a goal to be achieved rather than a sin to be shunned."

As Rapert confirmed to Rolling Stone, "NACL was the first and only para-legislative organization in the country to adopt the Texas methodology as a model law, and we promoted it to be passed in every state."

Rapert tweeted last year that "Sodom and Gomorrah idolized by the United States Government as directed by the #DEMOCRATS in control of our government. This is an embarrassment and defiles the history of our nation. I will never cease fighting to save our country from these mockers of all that is righteous."

Rolling Stone reports:

As a matter of policy, NACL members must pledge to 'uphold the sanctity of human life' from the 'moment of conception' to 'natural death'; to define marriage as the 'sacred union exclusively between one man and one woman'; and to oppose 'unhealthy influences such as alcohol abuse, drug addiction, pornography, prostitution, violence, gambling and crime.' Ironically, NACLs website is'Powered by GoDaddy,' a web service firm that sells .sex and .porn domains.

Additionally, the conservative preacher, according to Rolling Stone, has stated on:{ his show, Save the Nation, he is a "'proud' Christian Nationalist," and "rejects that being a Christian Nationalist is somehow unseemly or wrong."}:

Andrew Whitehead, author of Taking America Back for God: Christian Nationalism in the United States, notes Christian nationalists "believe that this country was founded for Christians like them, generally natural-born citizens and white."

The Guardian reports guk recent national survey taken by the Public Research Institute and Brookings Institution "found that a majority of Republicans in the U.S. 'are sympathetic to' Christian nationalism."

Another survey also conducted by Politico and the University of Maryland discovered that "61 percent of Republicans would be in 'favor' of 'the United States officially declaring the United States to be a Christian nation.'"

Likewise, Rapert believes the United States "was founded as a 'Judeo-Christian nation.'" Rolling Stone reports the minister also "believes the moment the founding fathers 'dedicated this nation to God' that 'Satan and his forces [have] put a target on the United States of America, trying to take us out.'"

Regarding the group's influence on nationwide legislation, NACL pushed the United State Supreme Court's overturning of Roe v. Wade last year. According to Rolling Stone, organization member and GOP Texas lawmaker, Bryan Hughes, spearheaded "the bounty-hunter**bill that all-but outlawed abortion in Texas by allowing private citizens to sue women who terminate pregnancies after six weeks, and their doctors, in civil court."

Rolling Stone reports:

By the time that bill passed in Texas in Sept. 2021, it had been adopted by NACL as model legislation. The reproductive rights group NARAL later tracked copycat legislation in more than a dozen states. Rapert takes substantial credit for that spread: 'NACL was the first and only para-legislative organization in the country to adopt the Texas methodology as a model law,' he tells Rolling Stone, 'and we promoted it to be passed in every state.'

Rapert's group boasts constituents in 31 states, in addition to "a dozen 'model laws'" members can push forward in their state legislatures.

Rolling Stone's full report is available at this link (subscription required). The Guardian's report is here.

kos 2 23

florida isn’t the only state to warnpharmacies of dispensing abortion bills despite the federal law—in total there are 20. A letter from Republican Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey was sent to CVS and Walgreens Wednesday warning them not to dispense abortion pills, the letter was co-signed by 19 other attorneys general, the Associated Pressreported.

While Bailey did not specify what legal action he would take if the pharmacies began selling abortion pills to Missourians by mail, he warned them of the restrictions the states had in place. The letter was co-signed by attorneys general in Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia.

ref

st . LOUIS (AP) — Attorneys general in 20 conservative-led states warned CVS and Walgreens on

Wednesday that they could face legal consequences if they sell abortion pills by mail in those states.

A letter from Republican Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey to the nation’s largest pharmacy-dispensing companies was co-signed by 19 other attorneys general, warning that sale of abortion pills would violate federal law and abortion laws in many states. Missouri is among states that implemented strict abortion prohibitions last summer after the Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade.

Bailey didn’t specify what legal action he would take if the pharmacies begin selling abortion pills to Missourians by mail.

“I will enforce the laws as written,” Bailey said in a statement in response to questions from The Associated Press. “That includes laws protecting the health of women and their unborn children. The FDA rule is in direct violation of federal law, and the unelected bureaucrats at the FDA have no authority to change Missouri law, either. The people’s elected representatives have spoken on the issue of abortion in our state, and we will fight to uphold that in court.”

Nineteen states have imposed restrictions on abortion pills,but there’s a court battle over whether they have the power to do so in defiance of U.S. Food and Drug Administration policy. A physician and a company that makes the pill mifepristone filed separate lawsuits last month seeking to strike down bans in North Carolina and West Virginia.

ABORTION

For more than 20 years, the FDA limited dispensing of the drug to a subset of specialty offices and clinics because of safety concerns. But since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the agency eased restrictions,eliminating the in-person requirement for the pill and allowing brick-and-mortar pharmacies to dispense it. At least one lawsuit filed by abortion opponents argues that the FDA has overstepped its authority in approving the abortion drugs.

A spokesman for Walgreens said the company is not currently dispensing mifepristone, although they are working to become eligible through an FDA-mandated certification process, requiring pharmacies to meet specific standards in shipping, tracking and confidentially storing drug prescribing records.

“We fully understand that we may not be able to dispense Mifepristone in all locations if we are certified under the program,” a statement from spokesman Fraser Engerman read.

Messages left with CVS were not immediately returned.

On Jan. 3, the FDA finalized a rule change that broadens availability of abortion pills to many more pharmacies, including large chains and mail-order companies.

The letter to the pharmacy giants said President Joe Biden’s administration’s endorsement of abortion pills by mail is “an attempt to circumvent the right of states to protect women and children.” It was co-signed by attorneys general in Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia.

The Missouri law was written in 2019 to go into effect if Roe v. Wade was ever overturned. It was implemented almost immediately after the Supreme Court decision was announced in June. The law makes it a felony punishable by five to 15 years in prison to perform or induce an abortion. Medical professionals who do so also could lose their licenses. The law says that women undergoing abortions cannot be prosecuted.

—-

AP journalists Geoff Mulvihill in Philadelphia and Matthew Perrone in Washington, D.C., contributed to this report.

https://www.alternet.org/abortion-2659334710/

abortion safe minne

an 2 23

If there was one inescapable takeaway from the midterm elections, it was this: Abortion is a losing issue for Republicans.

Despite reams of historical evidence suggesting November 2022 was going to produce a "red wave," Democrats racked up dramatic wins, seizing state and federal offices and retaining control of the Senate. Much of the post-election data on why was messy— except when it came to abortion. On that issue, study after study showed that support for abortion rights after the overturn of Roe v. Wade in June was a major — and often deciding— factor. The implicit political advice to Republicans couldn't be clearer: Back off the draconian abortion restrictions. They've done no such thing, however.

The Republican National Committee (RNC) passed a resolution on Monday calling for more attacks on reproductive rights, arguing that the reason Republicans lost so many races in November was that the party wasn't anti-abortion enough. "Instead of fighting back and exposing Democratic extremism on abortion, many Republican candidates failed to remind Americans of our proud heritage of challenging slavery, segregation, and the forces eroding the family and the sanctity of human life," read the resolution. To fix the problem, the RNC argued, Republicans need to pass even harsher anti-abortion laws, such as banning first trimester abortions. This resolution was one of the first orders of business after Ronna McDaniel won a fourth term as chair of the RNC, showcasing how serious GOP leadership is about doubling down on anti-choice politics.

Why Republicans would want to go harder on an issue that most data shows hurts them at the polls is puzzling, initially. But a new study from PerryUndem, which specializes in crafting nuanced polls that dig into the deeper motivations of American voters, suggests why that might be. Their numbers show that, even as the country has grown more progressive on gender and sexuality, sexist views among Republican voters have only grown more entrenched. In addition, the data makes it clear that the driving force behind anti-abortion policies is a belief that women are not smart or moral enough to be allowed control over their own bodies.

"The research tells us that anti-abortion attitudes" have little to do with "babies or when life begins," Tresa Undem, the co-founder of PerryUndem, told Salon. Instead, "views are about one's fundamental beliefs toward women." When it comes to Republicans, "they hold the most hostile sexist views."

In other words, to keep the GOP base motivated to donate, volunteer, and vote in elections, the Republican party needs to appeal to sexist attitudes. The most effective way to win over misogynist voters is to attack reproductive rights.

As the study shows, the single best predictor of whether someone opposes abortion rights is if they subscribe to negative stereotypes about women and/or are committed to "traditional" gender roles. It's not just that anti-choice respondents were far more likely than pro-choice respondents to believe that "women are too easily offended" or "white men are the most attacked group in the country right now." Abortion opponents were also more likely to deny that it's rape if a man forces himself on his wife. A majority of anti-abortion respondents also believed men understand the biology of abortion better than women do. Over two-thirds of people who support abortion bans agreed "it bothers me when a guy acts like a girl," while only 28% of pro-choice people disliked men they perceive as effeminate.

Feminist writer Jill Filipovic summarized the findings by arguing that Republicans are "almost comically insecure when it comes to gender and gender roles," and tend to view women as "overly-sensitive, irresponsible and immoral, ruining the natural order of things, and in need of male authority."

Undem singled out one poll question in particular, which asked if "there are many irresponsible women who will decide to have an abortion up until the moment of birth." The factually correct answer to this question is "no." As family practitioner Dr. Meera Shah told Salon after failed Republican Senate candidate Mehmet Oz invoked this myth during a debate, "That's just not something that happens," and it "doesn't even make sense," because you can't "abort" a pregnancy that is full-term. You just deliver the baby.

"It's absurd," Undem said, "to believe that one woman, let alone 'many,' will decide to have an elective abortion, at say 39 weeks carrying around an 8-pound baby, out of irresponsibility." And yet their polling data shows that nearly 8 out of 10 people who oppose abortion rights believe a sexist myth that defies not just medical science, but common sense.

The PerryUndem research comports with another study published in Political Psychology in November, which examines the attitudes about abortion among self-described libertarians, who mostly tend to vote Republican. Researchers found that this group opposed reproductive rights, but only for women.They supported laws giving men veto power over women's abortions, as well as "financial abortion" laws that allow a man to opt out of financially supporting a child if a woman refuses to abort a pregnancy.Libertarians, researchers found, have "support for men's and not women's reproductive autonomy."

These findings help explain why Republican candidate for Georgia's Senate seat, Herschel Walker, lost very little Republican support during the 2022 election, despite widespread reports that he had demanded that two ex-girlfriends get abortions. The issue isn't abortion, but women's autonomy. If the perception is that a man made the abortion choice for a woman, most Republican voters will not hold it against him at the polls.

Sexist stereotypes about things other than abortion often get attached to bills restricting reproductive rights. In Tennessee, for instance, a bill allowing rape victims to get abortions comes with a poison pill provision that will likely prevent most, if not all, requests for the exception: If a patient makes a "false report or statement," they can go to prison for a minimum of three years. But, as journalist Jessica Valenti points out, "women across the country have been accused—and arrested!—for making false reports for reasons as simple as a police officer didn't believe them." So-called "false" allegations are often quite true, but victims get snared by the myth that women make up rape accusations to get revenge or conceal their own sexual activity. In reality, false rape reports are estimated to be about .5% of overall rape numbers. Lying about rape to the authorities is vanishingly rare. Fear of being accused of lying, however, will likely prevent women from seeking help.

:{:{}:

\u201cThe anti-choice movement draws from the same logic as rape: it presumes that women can be compelled into a gendered role, including through the violent and forcible commandeering of their insides.\u201d

— Moira Donegan (@Moira Donegan) 1675268482

On January 15, a Planned Parenthood in Peoria, Illinois was set on fire, causing what the clinic says is over a million dollars in damages. Soon authorities arrested a 32-year-old man named Tyler Massengill who admitted to the arson after initially denying the charges. The reason for the attack he gave? He was still bitter over an ex-girlfriend getting an abortion a full three years ago. Sure enough, reporters soon dug up Massengill's extensive arrest record, which included two charges of domestic battery. Massengill took his behavior to the next level, but, as the PerryUndem data shows, this controlling attitude towards women is all too common, especially among Republican voters.

These sexist views are "why Republicans can succeed using the rhetoric they do," Undem told Salon. Republicans know that there's no substantive voting constituency for their economic policies. Tapping into this anger over women's economic and social gains allows the party to reach voters who would not be motivated by spending cuts to Social Security or tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. So while most Americans may reject the misogyny that underpins abortion bans, the anti-choice message is tapping a larger group of voters than Republicans could otherwise access. If they give up sexism now, they risk losing their core voters without necessarily getting new ones to replace them. Misogyny has been central to the Republican brand for too long, it turns out, for them to risk changing course now.

https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/overturning-roe-is-just-the-beginning-anti-choice-activists-look-to-abolish-abortion-rights-nationwide/

an 1 23 run for senate

rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.) is expressing interest in supporting a piece of legislation that would prohibit women from leaving the state to receive abortion treatment.

During a recent appearance on "The Pat Miller Show," Banks floated desire for stricter federal regulations to further restrict access to abortion care.

At one point during the discussion, Miller offered an example of a scenario where women could circumvent laws in one state by traveling to another state to have the procedure done.

"Our work as a pro-life movement is far from over," Miller said. "If a young lady can hop in a car in Fort Wayne and in an hour and a half she can be in a place in Michigan or in just under 3 hours, she could cross the line into Illinois and achieve what she was able to do with abortion clinics here in Indiana. The fight is far from over."

Then, Banks weighed in with his opinion as he expressed support for more laws. According to Banks, the move would be one to "save lives" and "protect babies."

"That's exactly right," Banks said, adding, "And I'm for federal legislation, for stronger laws at the state levels. Whatever we can do to save lives, to protect babies. That's what this fight is all about."

Watch the video below or at this link.

https://www.alternet.org/indiana-court-gop-abortion-ban/

minnesota late BS agAIN

1 23

2 house bill doa senate

https://www.alternet.org/house-gop-absurd-abortion-ban/

steve marshall

https://www.alternet.org/alabama-attorney-general-abortion-pills/

https://www.alternet.org/2022/09/lindsey-graham-states-should-decide/

an 9 22

Since Dobbs, many of the nightmare scenarios about abortion access have come true. Trigger bans have gone into effect. Healthcare for miscarriages has been delayed. Common prescriptions that can cause abortion (abortifacients) aren’t being filled at pharmacies.

Despite assurances from anti-choice people, total abortion bans are not making exceptions for emergency healthcare situations or they are so confusing that they’re making doctors scared to perform abortions even when it’s necessary to save the person’s life.

While abortions should be legal and accessible no matter the reason, it’s particularly dangerous when one can’t get one in a life-or-death situation. There isn’t time to cross state lines or the pregnancy is too far along for a self-managed abortion.

The White House has issued guidance that abortions must be performed to save the life of the pregnant person or prevent serious risk, but this week a court sided with a Texas argument against saving lives – of course, celebrated by the “pro-life” movement.

While the response to Dobbs from the current administration has been mixed, a clarifying guidance from the US Department of Health and Human Services is a vital tool in saving pregnant people’s lives.

In 1986, the Congress passed the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). The law required any hospital that accepts Medicare payments to provide emergency treatment to anyone regardless of their ability to pay or their legal status.

Obviously, this included emergency conditions related to pregnancy, including labor or miscarriage. The EMTALA requires hospitals to provide medical screenings as well as stabilization (or a transfer to a hospital that can provide medical care to accomplish stabilization).

In July, after Dobbs, the HHS clarified that the federal guidance under the EMTALA required performing an abortion if it’s necessary to save the pregnant person’s life or to prevent serious health risks.

HHS ensured its policy guidance had teeth.

Secretary Xavier Becerra emphasized that this federal policy preempts state law and that hospitals risk their Medicare payments if they do not comply. Such a policy from the HHS should protect emergency abortion in all 50 states despite individual state law.

The policy guidance makes it irrelevant if an abortion ban has a carve out for the life of the mother, because such abortions would be required (with the patient’s consent) under federal law as part of “stabilizing” the patient. While they didn’t issue an exhaustive list of pregnancy conditions that would warrant a federally required emergency abortion, “ectopic pregnancy, complications of pregnancy loss, or emergent hypertensive disorders, such as preeclampsia with severe features” were explicitly stated as qualifying conditions.

Unfortunately, states are challenging the HHS policy guideline in federal court and through total abortion ban legislation. State attorneys general are arguing against saving a pregnant person’s life.

Keep in mind, in many relevant cases, the choice is between allowing the pregnant person and fetus to die, and performing an abortion to save the pregnant person (or in the case of miscarriage, the fetus is already dead and they still want to let the pregnant person die).

The remaining cases are a choice between letting the mother die in the hopes that the fetus can be saved and performing an abortion to save the life of the mother. As far as I am aware, the HHS policy guidance doesn’t touch on the maternal fetal conflictwhen a pregnant person is diagnosed with cancer and might be denied treatment because said treatment could harm the fetus.

So State attorneys general in Texas and Idaho want to let pregnant people die even though denying abortion won’t save the fetus.

Ironically, part of their argument that the federal policy guidelines should be enjoined by a judge is that abortion bans in Texas and Idaho, and every other state, have life-of-the-mother exceptions.

In the opinion written by the Texas court enjoining the HHS guideline, the judge argues that policy guidelines are unnecessary and there is no conflict between state and federal law.

This is weird given that the Texas attorney general said that the HHS policy guidelines would require Texas doctors to violate state law.

Texas also argued that the EMTALA did not guarantee access to a specific treatment (and obviously didn’t mention abortion), so the federal government cannot require abortions using that law.

However, as some legal experts argue, if abortion is the only way to stabilize a patient, requiring such a procedure clearly falls under the EMTALA. There are many cases in which an abortion would be necessary in order to save the life of a patient. Therefore, denying one is tantamount to denying stabilizing care under the EMTALA.

The Texas opinion went further. The language of the EMTALA requires stabilizing the mother as well asthe fetus, but it was passed in 1986 when Roe was still law and abortion was legal in all 50 states.

It’s ahistorical and nonsensical to suggest that the law wouldn’t protect abortion to save the life of the mother since abortions for any reason were legal at the time the law was written.

Despite that clear rational interpretation, the Texas judge used the mention of the fetus in the law to argue it should protect the mother as well as “unborn children” (his wording - the EMTALA uses “fetus”).

Therefore, not only does this opinion enjoin federal policy guidance. It also elevates the fetus to the standing of a patient under the EMTALA, which supports the argument for the fetus’s personhood. (Again, this is why we need to embrace abortion as self-defense).

The Idaho case is more encouraging.

Unlike the Texas case, this suit resulted from the DOJ challenging the restrictive Idaho law that, the DOJ argued, violated the federal policy guidelines. Idaho’s trigger ban only allowed abortions when necessary to prevent death, which is more restrictive than the federal policy guidance that requires an abortion be performed if the pregnant person faces death or serious health risk.

The Idaho judge issued a temporary injunction on Idaho’s trigger abortion ban, because, “Allowing the criminal abortion ban to take effect, without a cutout for EMTALA-required care, would inject tremendous uncertainty into precisely what care is required (and permitted) for pregnant patients.”

The Texas and Idaho cases are ongoing. There are sure to be more lawsuits brought by state attorneys general as well as by the Department of Justice. We will have to wait and see if the HHS policy guidance requiring abortions to prevent death or serious risk stands.

Do not come away from reading this assuming the conflict is only about abortions in the case of serious risk or that abortions will always be allowed to save the life of the mother. Quibbling over bodily risk or death will absolutely result in pregnant people dying.

The more restrictive exceptions require doctors to delay care until sure the pregnant person is at risk or until a fetal heartbeat stops.

They also create confusion for doctors and care providers about when an abortion can be performed under state law. That confusion will result in the delay or refusal of care even when the pregnant person presents with a complication that will cause death.

Any abortion ban will delay care and result in higher maternal mortalities, but fighting against medically necessary abortions guarantees you’re fighting to explicitly let pregnant people die.

// texas bounty law

anyone any state aids and abets ~ press

https://www.businessinsider.com/south-carolina-lawmakers-propose-prison-sentences-25-years-abortion-providers-2022-7?op=1

... DHS advisory came hours after the U.S. Supreme Court announced its ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, rolling back a half-century precedent on abortion rights. As protests took place across the country, one incident has already escalated to violence. In Cedar Rapids, Iowa, a truck driver crashed into demonstrators protesting the overturn. The incident led to one victim being hospitalized.

6 22 kpfa

eliz w chem rx and data broker sell cell phone from ppl around clinics

aha key to polarization; kava home attack (pray harder and get a better dr]

attempt to grab moral high ground ( -phobes), obligates them to nothing aside from attack other tribe (at min vote?), vs adopt a kid or even pay taxes for decent schools

az gop mtg kegger big fat guy claimed ex cop started rant w/ baby killer, mantra, BLM guy knocked down, blake masters defend womanhood

622 an

no lnx twt

For decades, Sen. Susan Collins’ admirers in New England praised her as a shining example of a moderate GOP conservative who was staunchly pro-choice. Collins insisted that opposition to Roe v. Wade was a deal breaker for her, but in 2018, the Maine Republican helped pave the way for Roe’s demise when she voted to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Kavanaugh, Collins assured abortion rights supporters in 2018, considered Roe “settled law” and embraced the doctrine of stare decisis — a legal concept that means respect for precedent. But according to a leaked 5-4 majority draft opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, Kavanaugh is among the justices who favors overturning Roe. Collins was deceived by Kavanaugh — deception that, journalists Asawin Suebsaeng and Adam Rawnsley report in an article published by Rolling Stone on June 2, was encouraged by members of the Trump Administration.

“Turns out, Collins wasn’t just wrong about Kavanaugh,” Suebsaeng and Rawnsley explain. “She was deliberately manipulated by Trump Administration officials — and a future Supreme Court justice — who viewed her as an easy mark.Two former senior Trump White House officials tell Rolling Stone that the pro-choice Collins wasn’t even considered a serious threat to the devoutly conservative Kavanaugh.”

Suebsaeng and Rawnsley continue, “Instead, the team predicted she’d need only a vague assurance that the nominee would uphold the half-century-old ruling defending abortion rights. And they were right.”

The High Court justices who have reportedly decided to overturn Roe range from Kavanaugh and Alito to Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas. The four dissenters are Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Chief Justice John Roberts and Stephen Breyer (who is retiring and will be replaced by President Joe Biden’s nominee, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, later this year).

Collins voted to confirm Gorsuch in 2017, and she voted to confirm Alito in 2006. The Maine senator also voted to confirm Barack Obama nominees Sotomayor and Kagan.

After meeting with Alito in 2005, Collins told reporters, “He assured me that he has tremendous respect for precedent and that his approach is to not overturn cases due to a disagreement with how they were originally decided.”

A former Trump Administration official, interviewed on condition of anonymity, told Rolling Stone, “The thinking from Trump.… and everybody else who worked to make this happen was that, as long as his nominees didn’t say anything stupid (on abortion) and let the Susan Collins-es of the world think what they needed to think and hear what they needed to hear, then it would get done.”

According to Suebsaeng and Rawnsley, some Trump Administration officials who “worked on the Kavanaugh confirmation privately mocked Collins and her public posturing over Roe,” using “crass language” that included describing the Maine senator as a “cheap date.”

“Back in 2018,” Suebsaeng and Rawnsley report, “ the Trump team and Senate GOP offices would regularly send guidance to outside organizations and top activists who were fervently supporting Kavanaugh…. When it came to Collins, the guidance from Team Trump was, consistently, that she not be approached, according to two sources who were close to the White House. One of the reasons, a former top Trump aide says, is because the White House and Kavanaugh allies believed that a pressure campaign from the right would backfire, and that Collins would get to a ‘yes’ on her own — assuming she got just the right verbal responses she wanted.”

Suebsaeng and Rawnsley add, “The Trump team’s apparent manipulation of Collins was part of a broader effort to smuggle, in broad daylight, anti-Roe justices onto the Supreme Court — an effort that was only somewhat complicated by Trump’s past statements on ending Roe and his nominees’ long anti-abortion records.”

In 2018, according to Rolling Stones’ sources, “Trump aides and Kavanaugh allies” held mock Senate confirmation hearings — and Kavanaugh practiced giving evasive answers to questions about Roe.

“Whenever the topic of abortion came up in his prep sessions,” Suebsaeng and Rawnsley report, “Kavanaugh knew what do say: effectively, nothing. Typically, he would give lengthy, detailed monologues on dissents, opinions, and precedents, and then, as was his standard, refuse to divulge how he thought he’d rule if the opportunity to overturn Roe ever came up.”

An anonymous source told Rolling Stone, “That’s how (Kavanaugh) operated. It was his way of telling you, ‘I know a lot about this — but I’m not going to tell you how I’d rule’.… His idea was that saying it was long-standing precedent didn’t mean it couldn’t get overturned at some point.… (Kavanaugh) gets the need to demonstrate knowledge about the law, but not to tip your hand about your opinions about a specific case or issue.”

gov pete ricketts nebraska

https://www.alternet.org/2022/05/abortion-2657324709/

no exceptions

an 5 22

A top-ranking member of the far-right extremist group, The Oath Keeper, has admitted that he overheard the organization's leader, Stewart Rhodes, making multiple attempts to get in contact with former President Donald Trump in the days after the Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.

According to CNN, William Todd Wilson, who leads the North Carolina chapter of the extremist group, divulged the information as during his plea. Wilson specified that he overheard Rhodes' conversation while he was on speakerphone, court filings reveal.

"Wilson heard Rhodes repeatedly implore the individual to tell President Trump to call upon groups like the Oath Keepers to forcibly oppose the transfer of power. This individual denied Rhodes's request to speak directly with President Trump," Wilson said.

Per Wilson's court hearing, the call is said to have occurred while Rhodes, Wilson, and other members of the group were in a private hotel suite in Washington, D.C. The filing also said, "After the call ended, Rhodes stated to the group, 'I just want to fight.'"

Wilson's testimony follows Rhodes' not guilty plea entered on Wednesday, May 4, 2022. His attorneys insist they were unaware of the attempted calls to contact the former president.

Per CNN, Wilson said, "he had heard Rhodes discuss using even lethal violence to stop the congressional certification of the presidential vote." The news outlet also noted that he said, "he contributed firearms to the so-called 'quick reaction force' planned by the group that was set up in an Arlington, Virginia, hotel." According to prosecutors, that initiative "was so that members of the Oath Keepers could rush to the Capitol if called on by Rhodes."

In connection with the Jan. 6 insurrection, Wilson has pleaded guilty to obstruction and seditious conspiracy. He is now the third individual to admit that he participated in an attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Wilson has also indicated that he will cooperate with U.S. prosecutors as they continue their investigation into the series of events that transpired on Jan. 6.

As of Thursday, May 5, 2022, a total of 9 seditious conspiracy suspects connected to the extremist organization are also awaiting trials.

an 5 22

...

That makes the issue unavoidable for large companies.

Some have practical considerations to account for: Unlike with the Texas ban, the loss of Roe will mean corporations that provide health coverage and other benefits across state lines will have to weigh how to logistically do that when it comes to abortion.

But more broadly, since the rise of the #MeToo movement and the pandemic that decimated many jobs held by women, many corporations have spoken out about their commitments to inclusion for women, who up until 2020 made up more than half of the American workforce. One in four will have an abortion before the age of 45, a number that doesn’t include transgender and nonbinary people impacted, who major companies have also increasingly expressed a desire to support.

And yet only a handful of companies have publicly addressed the seemingly imminent fall of Roe. The 19th reached out to 30 of the largest employers in the country, including some of the Fortune 500 companies led by women — this year at a historic high — including CVS, Walgreens and General Motors, and companies that are major contributors to anti-abortion political action committees, such as Walmart, Coca-Cola and Google.

Only two in that group — Amazon and Citigroup — have said they will cover costs for employees who live in a state banning abortion to get the procedure in another state, though Amazon’s announcement, which came just hours before the draft ruling was leaked, is limited to employees on employer-sponsored health insurance and excludes many of the lowest paid employees, such as drivers.

T-Mobile, which has donated more than $340,000 since 2016 to groups heavily involved in electing anti-abortion senators, state legislators and govenors,said in a statement Friday that its “political donations have always been bipartisan and solely focused on supporting issues and topics relevant to our business and industry.”

The rest of the companies declined to comment or did not respond at all.

“Corporations have to choose a side of history right now — the longer they are silent, the weaker their claim is that they really care about women in the workplace,” said Noreen Farrell, a civil rights attorney and the executive director of Equal Rights Advocates, a nonprofit gender advocacy organization. “This may not be the intention of silence, but this is the message.”

The decisions companies do make have power, and they can be particularly meaningful in a post-Roe world where corporations can influence state politics on abortion if they wish to. In 2016, when North Carolina passed a bill to bar transgender people from using bathrooms that match their gender identity, PayPal and Deutsche Bank rolled back plans to expand in the state, helping to incite a repeal of the law in 2017....

https://www.alternet.org/2022/05/samuel-alito-just-laid-out-an-argument-for-rolling-back-a-variety-of-20th-century-progress-journalist/

an 3 22

Missouri freshman state Rep. Brian Seitz, a former Army paratrooper turned pastor turned music newspaper owner turned car wash manager turned Republican lawmaker knows a thing or two about God, having taught Bible classes for decades. On Friday Rep. Seitz defended his anti-abortion bill that would ban a drug physicians use to end dangerous ectopic pregnancies, saying, “Sometimes people want to play God.”

Seitz on Friday during debate on his bill said he knows what an ectopic pregnancy is and that it can be life-threatening.

(An ectopic pregnancy occurs when a fertilized egg is implanted outside the uterus. The egg is not viable, it will never become a living human being, yet can lead to the death of the mother without proper medical care.)

“Do you know how the treatment for ectopic pregnancies work?” Democratic state Rep. Keri Ingle asked Seitz.

“No I do not,” he replied, despite his wife being a nurse.

“Do you know that one of the medications you’re trying to outlaw is one of the main drugs given to unruptured [ectopic] pregnancies?”

“Right. Outlawed if used in an unlawful manner,” Seitz replied. “I want to outlaw the unlawful use of these devices,” he added, seeming to not understand basic legal principles.

That’s when it got interesting.

"Why are you even including ectopic pregnancies in your bill?” Rep. Ingle asked.

“Sometimes people want to play God,” Seitz declared. “Especially those that have women under some form of sex slavery or sex trafficking,” which has nothing directly to do with ectopic pregnancies.

Rep. Seitz has also said he “would like to protect” women who are victims of sex slavery and sex trafficking “by any lawful means,” but also.

Rep. Seitz clearly wants to remove the constitutional right to abortion – or as many say, a woman’s right to choose.

But on other medical matters, Seitz believes in defending a person’s right to choose, even if it leads to the death of someone else.

“A lot of my bills have to do with freedom and liberty and those personal choices that you can make for yourself,” Seitz told The Missouri Times. “COVID-19 is a virus, I believe it exists, but how you respond to that should be up to you.”

“I would rather see personal decision-making be involved in how you live your life in reference to a virus,” he said referring to a virus that literally infect and then kill a person just by someone else breathing.

Watch:

an badash 3 22

A far right Missouri state representative and pro-Trump acolyte is using a Texas vigilante legal theory in a novel manner to effectively ban women from leaving her state to obtain abortions in nearby Illinois – or any other state.

State Rep. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, who last year made headlines for wanting to name a portion. of a highway after the disgraced former president, is filing a bill that allows anyone in the country to sue if a Missouri resident leaves the state to access abortion services.

Rep. Coleman’s legislation “would allow private citizens to sue anyone who helps a Missouri resident obtain an abortion out of state, using the novel legal strategy behind the restrictive law in Texas that since September has banned abortions in that state after six weeks of pregnancy,” The Washington Post reports.

The Post calls Coleman a “prominent antiabortion lawmaker” but she’s actually the former attorney for a far right-wing anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQ group, the Thomas More Society.

Her official state bio tells her story a bit differently: “In addition to serving in the legislature, her most important job is being a wife and mother. She and her husband, Christopher Coleman, have been married for seventeen years and have six children. Mary Elizabeth practices law at Thomas More Society, a national not-for-profit law firm dedicated to restoring respect in law for life, family, and religious liberty.”

Coleman’s bill “would target anyone even tangentially involved in an abortion performed on a Missouri resident, including the hotline staffers who make the appointments, the marketing representatives who advertise out-of-state clinics, and the Illinois and Kansas-based doctors who handle the procedure. Her amendment also would make it illegal to manufacture, transport, possess or distribute abortion pills in Missouri.”

Presumably, anyone involved in transporting someone from Missouri to Illinois, too, would become a criminal in the eyes of the state of Missouri, which poses additional constitutional issues.

“Olivia Cappello, the press officer for state media campaigns at Planned Parenthood, called the idea ‘wild’ and ‘bonkers.’ She called the proposal ‘the most extraordinary provision we have ever seen.'”

AN 2 22

A debate between the Republicans running for Michigan attorney general confirmed warnings from reproductive rights advocates that Republicans aren’t going to stop with abortion bans—they’re coming for birth control next. In the last question of last Friday’s debate, all three men said they thought the 1965 Supreme Court decision striking down laws banning the sale of contraception had been wrongly decided, because states’ rights.

At least two of the three candidates did not know what Griswold v. Connecticut was about—which itself is kind of an issue in people campaigning to be Michigan’s top lawyer, since Griswold is a pretty damn famous case. (I literally learned about it in high school, and I am not a lawyer.) But all three agreed, once they learned what it was, that it was bad.

The Connecticut law struck down in Griswold allowed the prosecution of married couples for buying contraception. In Griswold, the Supreme Court said that the law violated the “right to marital privacy,” foreshadowing the privacy right that would be invoked in Roe v. Wade in 1973.

Here’s what the Michigan Republicans seeking to be the state’s top law enforcement officer had to say about the marital right to privacy around birth control decisions.

“Remind me,” Tom Leonard, the former speaker of the state House, said. After an explanation, he was ready to condemn the decision.

“Yeah, okay, I just, and I wanted clarification,” Leonard said. “This case, much like Roe v. Wade, I believe was wrongly decided, because it was an issue that trampled states’ rights and it was an issue that should have been left up to the states.”

State Rep. Ryan Berman literally pulled out his phone during that exchange.

”Yeah, you know what, I wasn’t familiar with Griswold v. Connecticut,but I’m an advanced legal researcher so I pulled it up real quick to look what it’s about,”he said. “And it says the court ruled that the Constitution did in fact protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on contraception. Again, I would have to look more into it and the reasoning behind it, but I’m all about states’ rights and limiting federal judicial activism.”

Matthew DePerno, endorsed by Donald Trump for enthusiastically signing on to the Big Lie about the 2020 elections, had the same basic answer, minus the admission that he didn’t know what he was talking about.

”Listen, all these cases that deal—Griswold, Roe v. Wade, Dobbs— these are all state right issues.I think that’s what we’re gonna see with the US Supreme Court. They’re gonna come down on the side that these liberty issues—number one, the wide expanse that was given on Roe v. Wade and this litany—are unworkable. The Supreme Court has to deal with that, has to decide, mark my words, that the privacy issue currently is unworkable. It’s going to be a state right issue on all of these things—as it should be!”

DePerno wasn’t done. “We need to start defending state rights as attorney generals, across this country,” he said. “Too many people, even in our own party, too many people have lost the idea of what states’ rights means. They haven’t read the works of our Founding Fathers. They haven’t read The Federalist Papers. They continue to push the idea that we need to give rights away to the federal government. We don’t.We need to take state rights back. We need to stand in our borders. When the feds come and try to take our rights, we need to stand as citizens in Michigan and hold the line and protect states’ rights.”

So, yes. Republicans are 100% coming for the right to obtain birth control once the Trump Supreme Court strikes down Roe v. Wade, with that decision likely coming this June. Already some states are advancing personhood legislation, which would declare an embryo or fetus to be a legal person. Such laws criminalize abortion, but they also potentially ban forms of birth control like the pill, IUDs, and emergency contraception.

”All 3 Republicans running for Michigan Attorney General just stated that they oppose the ruling in Griswold v Connecticut which outlawed prosecuting married couples for using contraception,”Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel tweeted Friday evening. “You read that right. Terrifying.”

Lots of people who support abortion rights spent years responding lackadaisically to warnings that Republicans were stacking the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade and legalize abortion bans. Now we see how true those warnings were, as they come to fruition. It’s time to sit up and listen to the warnings that Republicans won’t stop there.

"Offensive deprivation of an important right': Federal judge temporarily blocks Texas abortion ban

Elizabeth Preza

U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman on Wednesday issued a preliminary injunction blocking a Texas law that bans abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, insisting the restraining order...

1021 an

no lnx

Justice Alito lashes out at a journalist's criticism as 'ridiculous'

Cody Fenwick September 30, 2021

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito singled out a specific journalist for criticism on Thursday during a defensive speech at the University of Notre Dame. He used the event to respond to growing outrage about the court's use of the "shadow docket," in which it weighs in on ongoing cases without oral arguments or extended opinions

Adam Serwer of the Atlantic has been among those to recently call out the court's increasingly aggressive use of the shadow docket. Writing about its recent decision to allow a Texas law banning abortions after 6 weeks of pregnancy to go into effect, Serwer wrote: "The conservative majority on the Supreme Court was so eager to nullify Roe v. Wade, the 1973 precedent securing the right to abortion, that it didn't even wait for oral arguments."

Without naming Serwer or the Atlantic, Alito latched on to this quotation and attempted to refute it.

"Put aside the false and inflammatory claim that we nullified Roe v. Wade," Alito said. "We did no such thing, and we said that expressly in our order. I quote: 'The applicants now before us have raised serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law at issue. ... this order is not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas's law...'"

He continued: "So, the statement is flatly wrong, and the suggestion that we should've held oral argument is ridiculous."

Here is Justice Alito condemning @AdamSerwer’s Atlantic article about the Texas abortion order as “false,” “inflamm… https://t.co/DxItCd85D6

— Mark Joseph Stern (@Mark Joseph Stern) 1633027821.0

Alito's response is wholly unresponsive to Serwer's actual claim.First, most clearly, Serwer did not suggest that the justices should've held oral argument before issuing their order. His point, quite obviously, is that at the very least the court should wait to hold oral arguments and before doing something as upending precedent on abortion law. That's what the court did by allowing the Texas ban to go into effect based on a technicality, even though there were clear immediate harms caused by the obviously unconstitutional law. Alito's cheap shot here shows either a lack of interest in taking criticism seriously or poor critical reading skills, neither of which are qualities one would hope to see in a Supreme Court justice.

More to the point, though, Alito's claim that the court didn't nullify Roe v. Wade because it didn't address the constitutionality of abortion bans doesn't hold up either. If Serwer had claimed that the court had overturned Roe, Alito would arguably be right on a technicality. But nullifying isn't the same as formally overturning precedent. Serwer's point is that the court effectively rendered Roe's protections void in Texas, which is undoubtedly true. The Texas ban, which clearly flies in the face of Roe, is in force and is in fact impeding the ability of women to get abortions. That's what it means for the protection of a legal right to be nullified.

Alito's argument that the majority in the Texas case claimed it wasn't making a decision on the constitutionality of the law doesn't change the fact that rights have been nullified. And the claim that the decision was solely based on the technical aspects of the law, and not the justices' beliefs about the merits of case, doesn't pass the laugh test. There's no serious doubt that the court would've acted differently if, for example, Massachusetts had used a similarly structured law to ban gun ownership.

Serwer, responding to Alito, noted that the justice's comments offered more evidence for an argument he made in a separate article.

More seriously, it’s not often the justices make your point for you. So thanks. https://t.co/ySFCF7q5uu https://t.co/aXYISPFfbQ

— Adam Serwer ?? (@Adam Serwer ??) 1633035101.0

In that piece, Serwer wrote:

The current makeup of the Roberts Court is itself the outcome of a partisan battle that has spanned decades, one in which the conservative legal movement has won a tremendous victory that is certain to shape American life for generations to come.Anticipating their future triumphs, though, the very justices championed by this movement have taken to denying both this victory and its implications, insisting that this casino is resolutely opposed to gambling—in fact, it's not a casino; it's a church, and its critics are engaging in acts of civil blasphemy. With absolute control of the Court, the conservative legal movement's main obstacle is the fact that its extreme views are unpopular. When those views are imposed on the public in the future, the justices want to be able to claim that their decisions are the result of impartial legal reasoning, rather than motivated reasoning by committed right-wing ideologues. But that doesn't make the proposition that the justices are free of partisanship any less ridiculous.

https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/the-mastermind-behind-the-draconian-heartbeat-bill-banning-abortion-as-early-as-6-weeks/

Americans woke up last Wednesday morning to a new reality: Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark legislation granting a woman a right to an abortion, was violently under attack through the passage of a new “heartbeat bill” in Texas.

That law—which bans abortion as early as six weeks into pregnancy, makes no exception for rape or incest, and allows private citizens to sue anyone who performs or aids a woman in getting an abortion—is the first so-called heartbeat bill to have become law and actually be enforced. The Supreme Court did not swoop in and prevent the law’s enforcement as some had hoped: That evening, the top court allowed the law to stand in a 5-4 decision, with the five right-wing lawmakers firmly in camp against Roe simply claiming it was a procedural issue that abortion providers had not addressed, voting in effect for Texan women to lose the right to abortion provided under Roe.

Abort3 Bak

The law prioritizes the judgment of medical professionals, allowing more patients to receive care in-state

Figures in right-wing media have linked the new law to Satan, “human sacrifice,” or otherwise evil influences

Right-wing media attacked the women and providers who championed the legislation

Other figures attacked the law by comparing abortion to infanticide and downplaying potential pregnancy risks

How Fox News has been misinforming its viewers about abortion

Anti-abortion figures attack ProPublica stories about two women who died seeking care for their miscarriages under Texas’ abortion bans

Trump lied about Roe v. Wade's popularity at Fox's town hall. The network has long downplayed the impacts of the abortion ruling reversal.

MAGA media are attacking ProPublica’s comprehensive account of the role Georgia’s six-week abortion ban played in a woman's death

All power to the people': Nebraskans to vote on dueling abortion ballot measures

Related

ABORTION