Abortion

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats condemn judge’s ‘draconian’ decision threatening abortion drug

      by

      Democrats angrily denounced as “dangerous” and “draconian” a decision by a Texas judge that threatens access to a widely used abortion medication, while demanding the Joe Biden White House do more to protect reproductive rights.Nearly a quarter-century after the Food and Drug Administration approved the abortion pill mifepristone, the federal judge Matthew Kacsmaryk on Friday sought to invalidate the agency’s decision, handing down an unprecedented order that – if upheld – would severely restrict access to one of the most commonly used methods of terminating a pregnancy.In a dueling court ruling, handed down moments after, a judge in Washington state contradicted the Texas decision, ordering the FDA to maintain the “status quo” availability of mifepristone.With the future of access to medication abortion in potential jeopardy, even in states where the procedure remains legal, Democrats, reproductive rights advocates and providers vowed to keep fighting to protect the drug’s availability.In a statement, Biden called the ruling the “next big step toward the national ban on abortion that Republican elected officials have vowed to make law in America” and pledged to fight Kacsmaryk’s decision. On Friday night, the justice department gave notice that it would appeal the Texas ruling and said it was reviewing the Washington decision.The conflicting court orders left much uncertainty about the future of abortion access, probably elevating the issue to the US supreme court. With little faith in a majority conservative court that overturned Roe v Wade, Democrats are urging the administration to act more aggressively.“Ignore this ruling,” the US senator Ron Wyden, a Democrat of Oregon, said, arguing that the FDA has the authority to disregard the decision by Kacsmaryk, who was appointed to the federal bench by the Donald Trump White House.Wyden added: “The FDA, doctors, and pharmacies can and must go about their jobs like nothing has changed and keep mifepristone accessible to women across America.”Mifepristone is the first pill in a two-drug medication abortion regimen, which is approved for use through the 10th week of pregnancy. More than half of abortions in the US rely on the medication, and the Texas decision, if allowed to stand, would have severe ramifications for access.The president of the abortion rights group All* Above All, Morgan Hopkins, said Biden’s administration must “act immediately to ensure medication abortion care remains available, without interference from politicians or judges”.Since the supreme court eliminated the constitutional right to abortion, administration officials have moved to expand access to abortion medication and protect patients seeking care who travel to states where the procedure is legal. But the White House has so far resisted calls from reproductive rights advocates to declare a public health emergency for abortion.Biden has insisted, as he did again on Friday, that the “only way to stop those who are committed to taking away women’s rights and freedoms” is to elect candidates who will codify abortion protections into federal law.The Texas ruling comes days after a liberal judge won a commanding victory to serve on the Wisconsin supreme court in a contest that underscored the enduring potency of abortion politics. The judge, Janet Protasiewicz, had effectively promised voters that if they elected her, flipping the ideological balance of the court from conservative to liberal, the new majority would overturn Wisconsin’s 1849 abortion ban.Successive victories in favor of abortion rights from Kansas to Michigan have galvanized Democrats, who say the issue was key to their unexpectedly strong showing in last year’s midterms. The party plans to continue harnessing voter anger over the loss of federal abortion protections in upcoming elections.“The Republican party is playing with fire,” said Cecile Richards, a former president of Planned Parenthood who is now a co-chair at American Bridge 21st Century, a Democratic organization. “They have put their rightwing politics ahead of the health and wellbeing of American women. They are trying to strip Americans of our basic rights to control our bodies and our futures.”Laphonza Butler, president of Emily’s List, said the group was “working overtime to replace Republicans up and down the ballot with Democratic pro-choice women who are committed to protecting our reproductive freedoms no matter what”.Democrats were quick to cast the decision by Kacsmaryk, who had written critically of the Roe precedent, as part of a broader effort by conservatives to erode women’s reproductive rights.“This judge’s ruling is bullshit,” tweeted Senator Catherine Cortez Masto, a Democrat of Nevada who narrowly won re-election last year after making abortion rights a central issue of her campaign.The Democratic Connecticut senator Chris Murphy added in a statement: “We cannot allow rightwing judges to ignore the science, and put the health, safety, and autonomy of millions of women at risk.”And Congressman Hakeem Jeffries, the US House Democratic leader, said Republican efforts to restrict access to abortion care were “like a malignant tumor” spreading across the US.Yet despite their fury, congressional Democrats see few legislative options. With Republicans in control of the House, and Senate Democrats unable to eliminate the 60-vote legislative filibuster, efforts to protect abortion access are all but certain to fall short.Nevertheless, the Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer of New York, said his caucus was “relentlessly working to protect a woman’s right to choose from this extreme … Republican agenda” and recommitted to passing the Women’s Health Protection Act, legislation that seeks to enshrine abortion protections in federal law. But the measure lacks enough support to overcome the filibuster.In response to the Texas judge’s ruling, a number of Democrats renewed calls to eliminate the filibuster in the Senate, though they do not have enough support among their caucus to do so.Some prominent conservatives celebrated Kacsmaryk’s decision. For instance, Trump’s vice-president, Mike Pence, said: “Life won again today”.But some top Republicans, including Trump, the leading contender for the party’s 2024 presidential nomination, were silent late on Friday, reflecting a growing unease within the party about the political risks of overreaching on one of the most emotionally charged issues in American politics. More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Unborn human’: the anti-abortion rhetoric of Texas judge’s ruling

      by

      Texas-based federal judge Matthew Kacsmaryk on Friday issued a ruling aiming to suspend the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of mifepristone, a common abortion drug approved for use 23 years ago that has been consistently found to be safe and effective.It is widely believed that the anti-abortion groups who brought the case challenging the FDA’s authorization of the drug did so in Amarillo, Texas, so that it would be certain to land on the desk of this particular judge. Kacsmaryk, who was appointed by Donald Trump, is known for disregarding precedent and for weighing in on the far-right side of culture war issues.Kacsmaryk’s 67-page decision – a preliminary ruling that will be appealed and is likely to wind its way up to the supreme court – makes plain that the strategy paid off. His decision employs the same rhetoric that has been deliberately seeded over decades by the anti-abortion movement. Some examples are below.‘Unborn child’In the very first footnote to the decision, Kacsmaryk sets the tone for the opinion, explaining he why he will use “unborn human” or “unborn child” throughout his ruling:Jurists often use the word “fetus” to inaccurately identify unborn humans in unscientific ways. The word “fetus” refers to a specific gestational stage of development, as opposed to the zygote, blastocyst, or embryo stages … Because other jurists use the terms “unborn human” or “unborn child” interchangeably, and because both terms are inclusive of the multiple gestational stages relevant to the FDA Approval, 2016 Changes, and 2021 Changes, this Court uses “unborn human” or “unborn child” terminology throughout this Order, as appropriate.‘To kill the unborn human’Mifepristone, the drug at the center of the case, works by blocking progesterone, a hormone required for a pregnancy to develop. It is approved by the FDA to be taken up until 10 weeks of pregnancy and is generally used in conjunction with misoprostol, which causes the uterus to contract. This is how Kacsmaryk describes this two-pill regimen, which together account for more than half the abortions in the US:Because mifepristone alone will not always complete the abortion, FDA mandates a two-step drug regimen: mifepristone to kill the unborn human, followed by misoprostol to induce cramping and contractions to expel the unborn human from the mother’s womb.‘Shame, regret, anxiety, depression’The anti-abortion movement is known to champion the idea that people who have abortions come to be plagued by regret – an idea promoted by former supreme court justice Anthony Kennedy in a 2007 decision, even as he admitted there’s “no reliable data to measure the phenomenon”. But reliable data finally came in 2020, with the landmark Turnaway Study, which spent five years following nearly 1,000 women who sought abortions. The study found that 95% of women who had abortions reported five years later that it had been the right decision for them.Kacsmaryk, however, writes:Women who have aborted a child – especially through chemical abortion drugs that necessitate the woman seeing her aborted child once it passes – often experience shame, regret, anxiety, depression, drug abuse and suicidal thoughts because of the abortion.‘Fetal personhood’Kacsmaryk also writes that any consideration of alleged damage caused by the abortion pill should extend to the fetus. This is a nod to the radical idea of “fetal personhood” – that embryos and fetuses are people entitled to the full protection of the US constitution. That argument presumes abortion to be murder, and were it to take hold in the legal system, could lead to a national ban on the procedure. Invoking the name of the US supreme court decision which eliminated federal abortion rights, he writes:Parenthetically, said “individual justice” and “irreparable injury” analysis also arguably applies to the unborn humans extinguished by mifepristone – especially in the post-Dobbs era.Comstock ActThe groups that brought the case ruled on by Kacsmaryk aim to revive a long dormant, 150-year-old anti-obscenity law called the Comstock Act, which prohibited sending abortifacients in the mail. Kacsmaryk’s decision indeed revives that law – and some experts fear his logic could extend to more abortion methods and even lead to a national ban.This purported “consensus view” is that the Comstock Act does not prohibit the mailing of items designed to produce abortions “where the sender does not intend them to be used unlawfully”. Id. This argument is unpersuasive for several reasons … In any case, the Comstock Act plainly forecloses mail-order abortion in the present … the law is plain.Abortion as eugenicsKacsmaryk also quotes conservative US supreme court justice Clarence Thomas, who has linked abortion to eugenics, the belief in selective breeding to produce a superior society. In rejecting research pointing to worse psychosocial and financial outcomes for children of people denied abortions, he also seems to draw a line between abortion and the worst atrocities of the last century:(“[A]bortion has proved to be a disturbingly effective tool for implementing the discriminatory preferences that undergird eugenics.”) Though eugenics were once fashionable in the Commanding Heights and High Court, they hold less purchase after the conflict, carnage and casualties of the last century revealed the bloody consequences of Social Darwinism practiced by would-be Übermenschen. More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      A Week of Youthful Activism Sends Out Political Shockwaves

      by

      After Donald Trump’s indictment on Tuesday, progressives cemented two crucial victories in Wisconsin and Chicago, and, in Nashville, a firestorm erupted after the expulsion of two liberal lawmakers.A surge of youthful activism powered major liberal victories in Wisconsin and Chicago and a boisterous legislative uprising in Tennessee this week, as Republicans absorbed a string of damaging political blows, beginning with the arraignment of their leading presidential contender on criminal charges in Manhattan.The drumbeat of news seemed to batter the G.O.P.’s brand by the hour: Donald J. Trump became the first American president to be led into a courtroom to hear his indictment. Voters in Wisconsin handed Democrats a landslide victory and a one-seat majority on the state’s Supreme Court, with the fate of abortion and Wisconsin’s heavily gerrymandered political map at stake.And liberal activists helped one of their own rise to mayor of Chicago, defeating a more moderate Democrat who had the backing of Republicans in and around the nation’s third-largest city, and overcoming conservative-tinged arguments about crime and policing.A coda, or perhaps an own-goal, came on Thursday in red-state Tennessee, when the overwhelmingly Republican Legislature voted to expel two young, Black male representatives for their roles in leading youthful protests calling for gun control, after a mass shooting at a Christian school in Nashville, but narrowly allowed a white female lawmaker who had stood with them to remain.The three Tennessee state representatives who were subject to expulsion votes on Thursday, Mr. Pearson, Justin Jones and Gloria Johnson. Ms. Johnson was the only one not expelled.Jon Cherry for The New York TimesIn so doing, Tennessee Republicans achieved little besides catapulting the representatives, Justin Jones and Justin J. Pearson, as well as Gloria Johnson, onto the national stage: Both men could be reappointed to their seats by officials in their Nashville and Memphis districts as soon as next week, as they await special elections in which they are favored to win.“If my job, along with other members of the R.N.C., is to protect the brand of the Republican Party, this didn’t help,” said Oscar Brock, a Republican National Committeeman from Tennessee. “You’ve energized young voters against us. Worse than squandering support, you’ve made enemies where we didn’t need them.”To be sure, there were bright spots for Republicans: They won a special election giving them a supermajority in the Wisconsin Senate, which entails broad impeachment powers. And a Democrat’s switch to the G.O.P. in the North Carolina House of Representatives handed Republicans a two-chamber legislative supermajority in the only Southern state where abortion is broadly legal, granting Republicans in Raleigh the ability to override the vetoes of Gov. Roy Cooper, a Democrat.But in an odd-numbered year and a season when Americans are more taken with daffodils than with politics, the clamor of youthful activism and anger may have left the more lasting impression.“The right wing understands that time is not on their side,” said Representative Maxwell Frost, 26, a Florida Democrat who last year became the first member of Generation Z to be elected to the House. “What we saw in Chicago and Wisconsin, and what we saw in the backlash in Tennessee, is young people rising, and all of this played out in one week.”A “die-in” at the Tennessee State Capitol on Thursday. “It was a shameful day, but it will also wake people up, especially young people,” said Steve Cohen, a Tennessee congressman.Jon Cherry for The New York TimesFew Republicans defended the decision by their compatriots in Tennessee to try to silence elected Democrats by chucking them from the state house. Democrats, for their part, seized the moment.Representative Steve Cohen, the lone Democrat in Tennessee’s congressional delegation after the gerrymandering of district lines before last November’s election, recalled the one and only time he got any attention from the national press as a member of the State Legislature: with a vote against displaying the Ten Commandments. Even so, he said, it amounted to just a quote in Time magazine. Mr. Pearson and Mr. Jones became national celebrities over the course of 24 hours.“It was a shameful day, but it will also wake people up, especially young people,” Mr. Cohen said.Worrywarts in either party looking for ill omens could find plenty.Mr. Trump’s arraignment on felony charges that he falsified business records to hide hush money to a porn star in the final days of the 2016 election set off a bonanza of fund-raising for his campaign and rallied many Republicans around his third run for the presidency. And a spate of new polling pointed to Mr. Trump’s improving competitiveness against President Biden in 2024.Not even his rivals for the Republican nomination dared question the indictment’s underlying allegations that Mr. Trump engaged in extramarital dalliances with a pornographic film actress and a Playboy Playmate.“No matter how tawdry the charges and whether true or false, making a sexual encounter between two consenting adults the focal point of a criminal indictment or an impeachment strikes most Americans as an abuse of power and a distraction,” said Ralph Reed, a veteran political strategist and voice of Christian conservatives.Janet Protasiewicz at her election night party in Wisconsin after an easy victory for a Supreme Court seat.Jamie Kelter Davis for The New York TimesOne of the week’s through-lines was the awakening of the young, who are often neglected because, for all their activism, they often fail to vote. Young voters were not only crucial to the easy victory of Janet Protasiewicz, the liberal candidate for Wisconsin’s open Supreme Court seat, they also powered the liberal candidate for mayor of Chicago, Brandon Johnson, to an upset victory over the more moderate law-and-order candidate, Paul Vallas.And in the Tennessee State Capitol in Nashville, the chants of young protesters boomed through the hallways before, during and after the votes to oust the two state representatives, Mr. Jones, 27, and Mr. Pearson, 29.The drama in Nashville on Thursday was incendiary on multiple levels, a political cauldron of young versus old, Black versus white, a marginalized minority against an overwhelming majority — all playing out against the backdrop of gun violence in schools.Then there were the issues: guns and abortion.Addressing her party’s defeat in Wisconsin a day later on Fox News, Ronna McDaniel, the chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, conceded, “Where you’re losing by 10 points, there is a messaging issue. Abortion is still an issue, and we can’t allow the Democrats to define Republicans on it.”Her comments, however, elicited a storm of protest from anti-abortion voices in her party, which has showed no letup in its push for abortion curbs. Ron DeSantis, the governor of Florida and a potential rival of Mr. Trump’s for the presidential nomination, appears intent on signing a bill in Tallahassee to ban abortions after six weeks. Idaho’s Republican governor, Brad Little, signed legislation this week prohibiting minors from traveling outside the state for an abortion without parental consent.Still, Ms. McDaniel stood by her comments: “We can’t put our heads in the sand going into 2024,” she said on Fox News.Mr. Brock, the national committeeman from Tennessee, similarly warned his party on its response to gun violence after the shooting at the Covenant School in Nashville left six dead, including three children. Republicans, he said, can stay true to the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms and still respectfully listen to the arguments for more gun-safety regulation.“Even in Tennessee, we have swing districts in the State House and Senate,” he said, “and if you’ve angered tens of thousands of students and presumably their parents, you could theoretically expose yourself to a united front.” More

    • 100 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Three Takeaways From a Tumultuous Day in Politics

      by

      A blowout in Wisconsin, an indictment in New York and a progressive victory in Chicago.Supporters of the victorious Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate, Janet Protasiewicz, on Tuesday night in Milwaukee. Abortion was a key issue. Jamie Kelter Davis for The New York TimesIt has been a big — even historic — week in American politics. Donald J. Trump was indicted. The liberal candidate for Wisconsin Supreme Court, Janet Protasiewicz, easily prevailed over a conservative, Daniel Kelly. And Brandon Johnson, a progressive, was elected the mayor of Chicago.What did we learn? While in some cases it’s too soon to say much, here are a few early takeaways:It’s still 2022, at least in WisconsinIf the 2022 midterm elections offered any lesson, it was that liberals excel when abortion and democracy are on the ballot. Liberal voters turn out en masse. A crucial sliver of voters — perhaps as few as one in every 30 or 40 — will flip to vote for the Democrat when they otherwise would have voted Republican.That pattern continued in Wisconsin on Tuesday, when the liberal candidate won by 11 points, a striking margin for Wisconsin. Like many of the best Democratic showings of 2022, the Wisconsin race seemed likely to decide the fate of the state’s abortion ban and its gerrymandered legislative maps.Interestingly, Wisconsin was not a state where Democrats excelled last November. They didn’t fare poorly, but Senator Ron Johnson still won re-election and the incumbent Democratic governor won by just three points. The 2022 showing was no Democratic romp like in Pennsylvania or Michigan, where a stop-the-steal candidate or abortion referendum helped Democrats.This time, the issues facing Wisconsin voters were more like those in Michigan and Pennsylvania. As a result, Wisconsin liberals won a Pennsylvania-like and Michigan-like landslide.Too early to tell on Trump, but a short-term bumpIt’s still far too soon to say how the indictment of Mr. Trump will play out. But there are already plenty of signs that he has gained among Republican primary voters since last Thursday, when news of the indictment broke. Indeed, all four polls taken over this period showed Mr. Trump gaining compared with their previous survey.We’ll probably return to this question in more depth next week. After all, none of these polls were taken after his flight to New York or his surrender to authorities in Manhattan. And he was already gaining before the news of his indictment, so it’s hard to distinguish his latest gains from the continuation of a longer-term trend.Still, it would be no surprise if Mr. Trump is benefiting from the indictment. For days, the conservative media ecosystem has been dominated by a chorus of his defenders, including none other than his chief rival, Ron DeSantis. This is about as favorable of a media environment as it gets for a Republican primary candidate.How this will play over the longer term — especially if Mr. Trump faces other indictments — remains to be seen.Brandon Johnson, a progressive, as he concluded his victory speech on Tuesday in Chicago.Evan Cobb for The New York TimesBlack voters are the fulcrum of a divided Democratic electorateThe Chicago mayoral race wasn’t a Democratic primary, but it was about as close as it gets for a general election: Both candidates were Democrats, and 82 percent of Chicago voters backed Mr. Biden in 2020. Like many Democratic primaries over the last decade, it pitted an activist-backed progressive against a more moderate candidate.But while we’ve grown accustomed to victories for moderate Democrats in most of these intra-primary fights, in Chicago it was the progressive candidate Brandon Johnson who prevailed. That’s in no small part thanks to the backing of Black voters, who have often offered decisive support to high-profile establishment-backed candidates, from Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden to Eric Adams.With many examples of Black voters backing moderate candidates over the years, it can be tempting to assume that they are the reliable moderate allies of the establishment. In reality, it’s not so simple. In particular, Black voters have often backed Black progressives over white moderates and liberals.In the New York mayoral race, Black voters overwhelmingly backed Mr. Adams over the liberal Kathryn Garcia, even though they also preferred the Black progressive Maya Wiley over Ms. Garcia, based on data from ranked choice balloting. When Black voters side with progressives, the establishment’s position suddenly looks a lot weaker: Black voters represent around 20 percent of Democratic voters.Mr. Johnson, who is Black, routinely won 80 percent of the vote in the South Side’s majority Black wards, helping him squeak past the moderate Paul Vallas, who won a lot of the rest of the city.Mr. Johnson’s success doesn’t necessarily mean that Black Democrats are feeling the Bern, or otherwise itching to support progressive candidates. In this year’s primary, Mr. Johnson fared best in relatively young and white progressive areas on Chicago’s North Side, while the incumbent, Lori Lightfoot, carried the South Side wards where Mr. Johnson would dominate just a month later.But the importance of Black voters to progressive fortunes might offer a lesson for activists who hope one of their own might win a Democratic presidential primary.After all, the last candidate to beat the Democratic establishment in such a Democratic primary was none other than Barack Obama. More

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      The Power and Limits of Abortion Politics

      by

      What should we make of the role that abortion played in both the Chicago and Wisconsin elections this week?The elections this week in Chicago and Wisconsin were different in many ways. One was for mayor, the other for a state Supreme Court seat. One was in an overwhelmingly Democratic city, the other in a closely divided swing state.But there was at least one issue — abortion — that was part of both campaigns. And the outcomes of both elections had something in common: The more liberal candidate won.In Wisconsin, abortion dominated the race to fill a pivotal seat on the state Supreme Court, with the winner, Janet Protasiewicz, making clear that she would vote to overturn the state’s abortion ban. She beat Daniel Kelly by 11 percentage points.In Chicago, the issue played a much smaller role, partly because mayors have little control over abortion policy. Still, the winner, Brandon Johnson, used a past statement of personal opposition to abortion by his opponent, Paul Vallas, as part of an argument that Vallas was far too conservative for Chicago. Johnson won by about three percentage points.Together, the elections add to the evidence that abortion can be a potent issue for left-leaning candidates in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s unpopular overturning of Roe v. Wade. Some Democrats have come to see the post-Roe politics of abortion as so favorable that they believe the party should organize its 2024 campaign around the issue, as Rebecca Traister recently described in New York magazine. These Democrats’ argument is as simple as the headline on the magazine’s cover: “Abortion wins elections.”Today, I want to examine that claim, considering the supporting and conflicting evidence. With help from colleagues, I’ll also help you understand the other lessons from Chicago and Wisconsin.‘What happened?’After the Supreme Court overturned Roe last June and allowed states to ban abortion, more than a dozen quickly imposed tight restrictions. Today, abortion is largely illegal in most of red America, even though polls suggest many voters in these states support at least some access.In response, Democratic candidates in Republican-leaning states emphasized abortion in last year’s midterm campaigns. The Democrats saw it as a way to energize liberals and win over swing voters and moderate Republicans:In Georgia, as CNN reported in September, Stacey Abrams had “found an issue to center her campaign around as Election Day approaches: protecting abortion rights in Georgia.” Abrams, a Democrat, was trying to defeat Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican.In Florida, television commercials for Democratic Senate and governor candidates mentioned abortion nearly 28,000 times, according to one estimate.In Ohio and Texas, Democrats also emphasized the issue in statewide races.Democratic donors were hopeful enough about all these races that they poured money into them — and yet the party lost all of them. In some cases, the outcomes were landslides. “Abortion was supposed to be a defining issue for Florida Democrats,” read a headline in The Tampa Bay Times. “What happened?”The answer seems to be that abortion is a winning issue for Democrats, but only in some circumstances. When a campaign revolves around the subject — as the Wisconsin Supreme Court race did this week and voter referendums in Kansas, Kentucky and Michigan did last year — abortion can win big even in purple or red states. And when abortion serves as a symbol of a candidate’s broader conservatism — as in Chicago, and as some Democrats have used it in other mayoral races — the tactic can also work.But there is not yet evidence that abortion can determine the outcome of most political campaigns. In hotly contested races — for governor, Congress and other offices — most voters make their decisions based on an array of issues. And many Republican voters who support some abortion access are nonetheless willing to support a candidate who does not.In the latest edition of his newsletter, Nate Cohn, The Times’s chief political analyst, combines abortion with another major issue — democracy — and makes the following argument: “If the 2022 midterm elections offered any lesson, it was that liberals excel when abortion and democracy are on the ballot. Liberal voters turn out en masse. A crucial sliver of voters — perhaps as few as one in every 30 or 40 — will flip to vote for the Democrat when they otherwise would have voted Republican.”My colleague Reid Epstein, who covered the Wisconsin race, put it this way: “The difference in Wisconsin is that voters were playing with live ammunition. The Protasiewicz campaign and Democrats broadly made it clear from the very beginning to voters that she would be the deciding vote to strike down the state’s 1849 abortion law, while the conservative in the race, Daniel Kelly, would be a vote to keep it.”For the other implications of the Wisconsin race, especially for the state’s heavily gerrymandered legislative maps, I recommend Reid’s latest article.More on ChicagoIn Chicago, Johnson offered a playbook for winning an election in a heavily Democratic city as a strong progressive. Johnson ran left in the first round of voting, becoming the favored candidate of liberal activists, and then moved back to the center in the final round (by effectively disavowing his earlier support for defunding the police).He has signaled that as mayor he will pursue a progressive agenda, raising taxes on the rich and on corporations to pay for new services “Johnson talked frequently on the campaign trail about public safety,” Julie Bosman, The Times’s Chicago bureau chief, told me, “but he spoke about it in the larger context of increasing funding for public schools, creating anti-poverty programs and doubling youth employment.”Julie added: “This election tested the limits of the old-fashioned law-and-order message that drove Eric Adams’s win in New York. Voters I talked to at the polls yesterday said they were concerned about crime, but many of them said that they favored Johnson’s approach of building up social programs to fight poverty and violence, rather than trying to flood the streets with more police officers, as Vallas advocated.”For more on Chicago, see Mitch Smith’s story about how Johnson united a coalition of young, Black and progressive voters.Related:Idaho made it illegal to help someone under 18 leave the state to get an abortion without parental consent.“Who would like to watch me slay a zombie?” Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, asked before signing legislation repealing Michigan’s abortion ban.Republicans gained a supermajority in North Carolina’s legislature after a Democrat switched parties. It could let them ban abortions.THE LATEST NEWSTrump IndictmentDonald Trump spent nearly an hour inside a Manhattan courtroom on Tuesday. Here’s what happened.Trump’s charges bring uncertainty to both parties: Some think the case is flimsy, others that it has the potential to reverberate politically.Some of Trump’s aides acknowledge that the Manhattan case is bad for his campaign.Republicans say they will question Alvin Bragg, the Manhattan district attorney, about Trump, but the reality is more complicated.From “all a pattern of behavior” to “such nonsense,” four Times Opinion writers assess the indictment.InternationalThese maps show Russia’s gains in Ukraine this year: three small settlements and part of the city of Bakhmut, a battlefield with limited strategic value.Emmanuel Macron, the French president, and Xi Jinping, China’s top leader, are speaking in Beijing today. Macron said China could help bring peace to Ukraine.Speaker Kevin McCarthy hosted Taiwan’s president in California, a show of defiance to China.Other Big StoriesTennessee Republicans will vote today on whether to expel three Democratic lawmakers who joined a gun-control protest in the state legislature.A tech executive who founded Cash App was stabbed to death on the street in San Francisco.Catholic clergy in Baltimore abused hundreds of children and teenagers over six decades, according to the Maryland attorney general.In Ohio, a state that depends on the auto industry, electric cars are reshaping jobs.Oil and gas projects are back: Alaska’s Willow Project is one of hundreds that have been approved worldwide in the past year.A study rebutted decades of research claiming that moderate drinking has health benefits.OpinionsPerforming an abortion in Tennessee is a felony. Dr. Elise Boos has been doing it anyway.If something is advertised to you online, you probably shouldn’t buy it, Julia Angwin writes.MORNING READSHOKABig sneaker: Hokas broke the billion-dollar mark in 2022. How?Fancì Club: Meet the man behind the internet’s favorite outfits.Astronaut wrangling: NASA can send people to space. Engineering a surprise proved tricky.Retirement: Should we rethink how many years we work?Advice from Wirecutter: See if an outdoor TV is right for you.Lives Lived: Klaus Teuber began designing board games to unwind. One of his creations was The Settlers of Catan. Teuber died at 70.SPORTS NEWS FROM THE ATHLETICTee time: Only three players have repeated as Masters champions: Tiger Woods, Nick Faldo and Jack Nicklaus. Can Scottie Scheffler join them? Here are 10 things to know about this year’s tournament.Bucks and Nuggets clinch: Milwaukee and Denver are the No. 1 seeds in the N.B.A. playoffs. ARTS AND IDEAS The pianist Kirill Gerstein.Stephan RaboldReconsidering RachmaninoffSergei Rachmaninoff is a popular composer, but many classical music experts dismiss him as a sentimentalist who leaned into nostalgia. Now, 150 years after Rachmaninoff’s birth, the pianist Kirill Gerstein is re-examining the composer’s artistry.“We’ve tried various ways of dismissing it,” Gerstein said of Rachmaninoff’s catalog, “and it’s not going away, so possibly we can say: Well, maybe it’s not just because it’s pretty and it’s popular, but because it has a real core of aesthetic value.”PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookBobbi Lin for The New York TimesHot cross buns are a delicious symbol of Easter.What to ReadIn “The Peking Express,” James Zimmerman tells the story of justice-seeking bandits who derailed a train in rural China a century ago.What to Listen toFive minutes that will make you love the jazz pianist Mary Lou Williams.Late NightThe hosts discussed Trump’s return to Mar-a-Lago.Now Time to PlayThe pangrams from yesterday’s Spelling Bee were cofounded and confounded. Here is today’s puzzle.Here’s today’s Mini Crossword, and a clue: Prohibit (three letters).And here’s today’s Wordle. Thanks for spending part of your morning with The Times. See you tomorrow. — DavidBecause of an editing error, yesterday’s newsletter misstated the history of the type of charges against Donald Trump. The Manhattan district attorney more frequently files charges of falsifying business records as felonies, not misdemeanors.P.S. Washington State University gave Dean Baquet, The Times’s former executive editor, its Edward R. Murrow Lifetime Achievement Award.Here’s today’s front page.“The Daily” is about U.S.-Africa relations.Sign up here to get this newsletter in your inbox. Reach our team at themorning@nytimes.com. More

    • 125 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Protasiewicz’s Wisconsin Victory Shows Power of Abortion Rights for Democrats

      by

      A resounding victory by a liberal judge who ran on abortion rights showed that a largely unified political left is keeping up its momentum, and served as a new warning sign to Republicans.MILWAUKEE — The commanding victory on Tuesday by a liberal candidate in a pivotal race for the Wisconsin Supreme Court showed the enduring power of abortion rights and issues of democracy as motivators for Democratic voters, as well as a continuing struggle among conservatives to put forward candidates who can unite Republicans and win general elections.The liberal candidate, Janet Protasiewicz, swept onto the bench by 11 percentage points, a staggering margin in an evenly divided battleground state that signaled just how much last summer’s Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade has transformed American politics.The Wisconsin race centered squarely on abortion rights and political representation: Judge Protasiewicz all but promised voters that if they elected her, the court’s new 4-to-3 liberal majority would reverse Wisconsin’s 1849 abortion ban and overturn the state’s famously gerrymandered, Republican-friendly legislative maps.Wisconsinites responded to that pitch, rejecting a conservative candidate backed by anti-abortion groups who took 2020 election deniers as a client and struggled to rally Republican donors behind him.The outcome, combined with a surprise victory in Chicago’s mayoral race by Brandon Johnson, an outspoken progressive, demonstrated that the country’s largely unified political left is sustaining momentum since its unexpectedly strong showing in the midterm elections, even as conservatives fight among themselves and struggle to counter Democratic messaging on abortion rights.Republicans are now heading into a series of coming races — for Kentucky governor this year and for president and an array of Senate seats in 2024 — with ample warning signs about the pitfalls of nominating candidates who hold positions on issues like abortion and elections that are unpopular with voters in the nation’s most competitive states.Judge Protasiewicz will join the court in August. Liberal lawyers in the state are already preparing to pursue lawsuits to roll back conservative policies. Jamie Kelter Davis for The New York TimesThe triumph by Judge Protasiewicz, a liberal Milwaukee County judge, will also allow Wisconsin Democrats to pursue their own agenda through the courts after spending a dozen years ducking and running at most levels of state politics, worrying about what the dominant Republicans would lob at them next.“For a long time, Democrats in the Assembly have understood that our role is primarily being on defense,” Greta Neubauer, who leads the chamber’s Democratic minority, said at Judge Protasiewicz’s victory party in Milwaukee. Now, Ms. Neubauer said, “we have an opportunity to go on offense.”Judge Protasiewicz will be seated on the court on Aug. 1. A legal challenge to the state’s abortion ban is scheduled to begin in circuit court in Dane County next month, and while it is unclear when the ban could come before the State Supreme Court, the justices are widely expected to hear the case within a year or two and strike down the ban. Liberal lawyers are also eyeing the best way to frame a lawsuit that could prompt the court to throw out the Republican-drawn maps.During her victory speech, the liberal candidate said she would treat the role with “integrity,” then was joined on stage by current members of the court.Jamie Kelter Davis for The New York TimesIt will be many months, at least, before there is a final State Supreme Court resolution on those and other hot-button issues likely to come before the court’s new liberal majority, which will consist of four women for the first time in the state’s history.To emphasize that point, when Judge Protasiewicz arrived to deliver her victory remarks on Tuesday night, she was trailed by the three sitting liberal justices as the sound system played Lizzo’s “About Damn Time.”“Today’s results mean two very important and special things,” Judge Protasiewicz told supporters. “First, it means that Wisconsin voters have made their voices heard. They have chosen to reject partisan extremism in this state. And second, it means our democracy will always prevail.”Judge Protasiewicz defeated Daniel Kelly, a conservative former State Supreme Court justice who also lost an April 2020 election by 11 points and went on to represent the Republican National Committee in its efforts to overturn President Donald J. Trump’s defeat that year.Justice Kelly, who has long been an opponent of abortion rights, did little to parry Judge Protasiewicz on the issue. He never mentioned abortion in his television advertising and, during his final rally on Monday night in Waukesha, a parade of Republican officials spoke for more than an hour without mentioning abortion.Instead, Justice Kelly and his allies focused almost entirely on crime, an issue that also fell flat in Chicago, where Mr. Johnson, a liberal candidate, defeated Paul Vallas, who had tethered his campaign to a tough-on-crime message.Asked about his relative silence on abortion, Justice Kelly said that “the court does not do political decisions,” adding, “The question of abortion, that belongs in the Legislature to decide.”That approach turned Justice Kelly into a denier of the current political reality.Supportive right-wing radio hosts complained that he had not defended the state’s abortion ban, and conservative donors, whom Justice Kelly was reluctant to call to ask for money, steered clear of his campaign. And not enough of Wisconsin’s legions of conservative grass-roots voters were energized by his campaign speeches, which delved into legal theory and lamented his severe financial disadvantage.“Doing a statewide campaign, as it turns out, is kind of hard,” Justice Kelly said at the Waukesha rally.On Wednesday, Mr. Trump blamed Justice Kelly, whom he endorsed in 2020, for neglecting to seek his endorsement this year, arguing on his social media site that this “guaranteed his loss.”Democrats in Wisconsin and beyond gave the Protasiewicz campaign a decided financial edge. Gov. J.B. Pritzker of Illinois organized a March 6 videoconference that raised $5 million for the Protasiewicz campaign, the Democratic Party of Wisconsin and allied groups. The party transferred $8.3 million to the Protasiewicz campaign.The Republican Party of Wisconsin gave no money directly to Justice Kelly. Instead, Republican donors poured $12 million into third-party groups, whose rates for television advertising are three times what candidates pay.Brian Schimming, the Wisconsin G.O.P. chairman, lamented the disparity and donors’ decision to keep an arm’s-length distance from Justice Kelly’s campaign.“There’s a fair bit of chatter about that right now,” he said. “We could have done a more efficient job of spending it.”Daniel Kelly, who has long been an opponent of abortion rights, did little to parry Judge Protasiewicz on the issue in their race.Marla Bergh for The New York TimesAfter abortion, the biggest issue facing the new liberal court will be the state’s legislative maps.Jeffrey A. Mandell, the board president and founder of Law Forward, a progressive law firm in Madison, said he aimed to have new maps in place in time for the 2024 election, which would most likely require the case to be decided and new maps to be drawn by next April, when candidates begin circulating petitions to qualify for the primary ballot.“There’s no time to waste,” Mr. Mandell said.The three sitting liberal justices declined to say whether they believed it was possible to have new maps ready for 2024, but Judge Protasiewicz said it was “unlikely” the court could decide a case and put new maps into effect by next year’s elections.Liberals will hold a 4-to-3 majority on the court through at least 2025, when Ann Walsh Bradley, a 72-year-old liberal justice poised to become the new chief justice under the new majority, faces re-election. Justice Bradley said Tuesday night that she would run for a fourth 10-year term.Democrats are hopeful about her chances: Since the Wisconsin Supreme Court began electing justices statewide in 1853, no justice who has won a competitive election, as Justice Bradley has done twice, subsequently lost one.Beyond abortion and redistricting, the new liberal majority will decide a host of other issues, including labor rights that were diminished by Republicans.Stephanie Bloomingdale, the president of the Wisconsin A.F.L.-C.I.O., said she had watched with jealousy this year as Michigan Democrats enacted a wide range of liberal policies after redistricting helped them take full control of their state government for the first time in 40 years.“We see them, we’re very proud of them, but we’re wishing it could be us,” Ms. Bloomingdale said. “You know, in Wisconsin, we can have nice things, too.”Even before Election Day, Wisconsin Republicans who saw that a liberal victory was likely began to disparage their State Supreme Court as an illegitimate body.“I don’t think people have any idea of what’s coming,” said Rebecca Bradley, a conservative Supreme Court justice who in a decision banning drop boxes last year compared the state’s 2020 presidential contest to elections in Syria, North Korea and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. “We will have four people in Wisconsin robbing the people of the right to govern themselves.”But the scale of Judge Protasiewicz’s victory suggests that Wisconsin voters are inclined to dismiss the Republican arguments. She carried 27 of the state’s 72 counties — 11 more than Mr. Evers did when he was re-elected in November by three points — and nearly equaled the margin by which Jill Karofsky, a fellow liberal, defeated Justice Kelly in the 2020 election, when Democrats held their presidential primary on the same ballot.“I’m not concerned about the legitimacy of the court, because so many people voted for this court,” Justice Karofsky said as she nursed a Miller Lite at the Protasiewicz victory party. “So many people wanted this majority.” More

    • 113 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Wisconsin Supreme Court Election: Protasiewicz Wins With Abortion Message

      by

      Janet Protasiewicz prevailed in the state’s highly consequential contest for the Supreme Court, which will now be likely to reverse the state’s abortion ban and end the use of gerrymandered legislative maps.MILWAUKEE — Wisconsin voters on Tuesday chose to upend the political direction of their state by electing a liberal candidate to the State Supreme Court, flipping majority control from conservatives, according to The Associated Press. The result means that in the next year, the court is likely to reverse the state’s abortion ban and end the use of gerrymandered legislative maps drawn by Republicans.Janet Protasiewicz, a liberal Milwaukee County judge, defeated Daniel Kelly, a conservative former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice who sought a return to the bench. With more than 75 percent of votes counted, Judge Protasiewicz led by more than 10 percentage points, though the margin was expected to narrow as rural counties tallied ballots.“Our state is taking a step forward to a better and brighter future where our rights and freedoms will be protected,” Judge Protasiewicz told jubilant supporters at her victory party in Milwaukee.The contest, which featured over $40 million in spending, was the most expensive judicial election in American history. Early on, Democrats recognized the importance of the race for a swing seat on the top court in one of the country’s perennial political battlegrounds. Millions of dollars from out of state poured into Wisconsin to back Judge Protasiewicz, and a host of national Democratic groups rallied behind her campaign.Judge Protasiewicz, 60, shattered long-held notions of how judicial candidates should conduct themselves by making her political priorities central to her campaign. She made explicit her support for abortion rights and called the maps, which gave Republicans near-supermajority control of the Legislature, “rigged” and “unfair.”Her election to a 10-year term for an officially nonpartisan seat gives Wisconsin’s liberals a 4-to-3 majority on the court, which has been controlled by conservatives since 2008. Liberals will hold a court majority until at least 2025, when a liberal justice’s term expires. A conservative justice’s term ends in 2026.As the race was called Tuesday night, the court’s three sitting liberal justices embraced at Judge Protasiewicz’s election night party in Milwaukee, as onlookers cried tears of joy. During her speech, the judge and the other three liberal justices clasped their hands together in the air in celebration.“Today’s results mean two very important and special things,” Judge Protasiewicz said. “First, it means that Wisconsin voters have made their voices heard. They have chosen to reject partisan extremism in this state. And second, it means our democracy will always prevail.”Justice Kelly, 59, evinced the bitterness of the campaign with a testy concession speech that acknowledged his defeat and portended doom for the state. He called his rival’s campaign “truly beneath contempt” and decried “the rancid slanders that were launched against me.”“I wish that I’d be able to concede to a worthy opponent, but I do not have a worthy opponent,” Justice Kelly told supporters in Green Lake, Wis. He had not called Judge Protasiewicz by the time she delivered her victory remarks.He concluded the final speech of his campaign by saying, “I wish Wisconsin the best of luck, because I think it’s going to need it.”Judge Protasiewicz made a calculation from the start of the race that Wisconsin voters would reward her for making clear her positions on abortion rights and the state’s maps — issues most likely to animate and energize the base of the Democratic Party.In an interview at her home on Tuesday before the results were known, Judge Protasiewicz (pronounced pro-tuh-SAY-witz) attributed her success on the campaign trail to the decision to inform voters of what she called “my values,” as opposed to Justice Kelly, who used fewer specifics about his positions.“Rather than reading between the lines and having to do your sleuthing around like I think people have to do with him, I think I would rather just let people know what my values are,” she said. “We’ll see tonight if the electorate appreciates that candor or not.”Over the last dozen years, the court has served as an important backstop for Wisconsin Republicans. It certified as constitutional Gov. Scott Walker’s early overhauls to state government, including the Act 10 law that gutted public employee unions, as well as voting restrictions like a requirement for a state-issued identification and a ban on ballot drop boxes.In 2020, Wisconsin’s Supreme Court was the only one in the country to agree to hear President Donald J. Trump’s challenge to the presidential election. Mr. Trump sought to invalidate 200,000 ballots from the state’s two largest Democratic counties. The Wisconsin court rejected his claim on a 4-to-3 vote, with one of the conservative justices siding with the court’s three liberals on procedural grounds.That key vote gave this year’s court race extra importance, because the justices will weigh in on voting and election issues surrounding the 2024 election. Wisconsin, where Mr. Trump’s triumph in 2016 interrupted a string of Democratic presidential victories going back to 1988, is set to again be ferociously contested.The court has acted in Republicans’ interest on issues that have received little attention outside the state.In 2020, a year after Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, succeeded Mr. Walker, conservative justices agreed to limit his line-item veto authority, which generations of Wisconsin governors from both parties had used. Last year, the court’s conservatives allowed a Walker appointee whose term had expired to remain in office over Mr. Evers’s objection.Once Judge Protasiewicz assumes her place on the court on Aug. 1, the first priority for Wisconsin Democrats will be to bring a case to challenge the current legislative maps, which have given Republicans all but unbreakable control of the state government in Madison.Jeffrey A. Mandell, the president of Law Forward, a progressive law firm that has represented Mr. Evers, said he would file a legal request for the Supreme Court to hear a redistricting case the day after Judge Protasiewicz is seated.“Pretty much everything problematic in Wisconsin flows from the gerrymandering,” Mr. Mandell said in an interview on Tuesday. “Trying to address the gerrymander and reverse the extreme partisan gerrymandering we have is the highest priority.”The state’s abortion ban, which was enacted in 1849, seven decades before women could vote, is already being challenged by Josh Kaul, Wisconsin’s Democratic attorney general. This week, a circuit court in Dane County scheduled the first oral arguments on Mr. Kaul’s case for May 4, but whichever way a county judge rules, the case is all but certain to advance on appeal to the State Supreme Court later this year.Dan Simmons More

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Liberal judge wins Wisconsin supreme court election, flipping ideological balance

      by

      In a historic election, the liberal judge Janet Protasiewicz is projected to win her race for a seat on Wisconsin’s supreme court. Her win will flip the ideological balance of the state’s highest court, which has been controlled by a conservative majority for 15 years.Elections and democracy observers have called this election the most consequential one of the year, with abortion rights, redistricting and election rules at stake. The race pitted Protasiewicz, a Milwaukee circuit court judge and former prosecutor, against Dan Kelly, a former Wisconsin supreme court justice with ties to election deniers and the far right.Protasiewicz will replace the conservative justice Patience Roggensack on 1 August; the court will be controlled by a narrow liberal majority.The race smashed campaign finance records for state judicial elections, drawing more than $45m, according to a WisPolitics analysis. By comparison, in Wisconsin’s last supreme court race in 2020, donors brought in about $10m. Political groups and wealthy individuals across the country have opened their coffers on both sides of the race, with Protasiewicz raising nearly $9m from the Democratic party and outside groups pledging more than $6m on pro-Kelly advertisements.The massive contributions underscore the stakes of the race – from abortion rights to the state’s electoral maps, which experts have identified as one of the most gerrymandered in the country.In 2020 the Wisconsin supreme court narrowly rejected an attempt by former president Donald Trump to overturn the results of the presidential election; the court could see a similar challenge in 2024. Following the 2020 elections, Kelly was hired by the Wisconsin GOP to advise on a plan to have a group of Republicans falsely claim to be electors. The plan failed and Wisconsin’s 10 Democratic electors voted for Joe Biden, reflecting the popular vote in the state.In a March interview with The Guardian, Protasiewicz said the future of democracy in Wisconsin and at the national level motivated her to run. “I thought about our democracy, and our democracy being at stake. And that’s why I decided to do it,” she said. “All the issues that we care about are going to come in front of this court. But primarily, primarily, our democracy is on the line.”When the US supreme court overturned Roe v Wade in June, an 1849 law banning abortion went back into effect in Wisconsin. Abortion quickly emerged as a top issue in this race, with voters across the state mobilizing around the question of abortion access. A challenge to the ban is currently making its way through state courts and will likely end up in front of the state supreme court this year.During the race, Protasiewicz was open about her personal support for legal abortion access, and although Kelly refrained from sharing his views on the campaign trail, his campaign benefited from more than $1m from the anti-abortion group Women Speak Out Pac and earned endorsements from three anti-abortion groups in the state.With a liberal majority on the court, the 1849 ban could be overruled.Ahead of the announcement of Protasiewicz’s win Tuesday night, Mandela Barnes, Wisconsin’s former lieutenant governor who ran unsuccessfully for a US Senate seat in 2022, told the Guardian that her victory would be incredibly significant for the state.“If she pulls this off we can restore balance, we can restore fairness, we can restore actual justice,” he said. “That’s what’s exciting about it.”At Protasiewicz’s election night watch party in Milwaukee, supporters followed the election on their phones and broke out in excitement as favorable results were reported. The room erupted once the race was called for Protasiewicz.“She’s one of those people who’s Wisconsin to the bone,” Sonya Bice, 57, a lawyer in Madison, said about Protasiewicz. “She’s one of those people who’s willing to get out there and run in what everyone knew was going to be a very ugly race.”Progressive groups in the state are preparing to take advantage of the supreme court’s new liberal majority. Nicole Safar, the executive director of Law Forward, a progressive non-profit legal group, said organizers were considering how best to challenge the state’s rigged legislative maps.“Law Forward and our allies and our co-counsel are seriously looking at what a partisan gerrymander claim under the Wisconsin constitution looks like,” she said.In a special election that is still too close to call, voters will decide between Republican Dan Knodl and Democrat Jodi Habush Sinykin to represent Milwaukee’s northern suburbs. If Knodl wins, the Republican party will have a supermajority in the state senate, paving the way for the party to impeach state officials – a process that Knodl says he would consider launching to pull Protasiewicz from the supreme court. More