Abortion

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Seeking Evangelicals’ Support Again, Trump Confronts a Changed Religious Landscape

      by

      Evangelicals were wooed by Donald Trump’s promise of an anti-abortion Supreme Court. Now, they’re back playing the field.On a recent Sunday morning at Elmbrook Church, a nondenominational evangelical megachurch in Brookfield, Wis., Jerry Wilson considered the far-off matter of his vote in 2024.“It’s going to be a Republican,” he said, “but I don’t know who.”In 2016 and 2020 he had voted for Donald J. Trump. “He did accomplish a lot for Christians, for evangelicals,” Mr. Wilson, 64, said. But “he’s got a lot of negative attributes, and they make you pause and think, you know? I’d like to see what the other candidates have to offer.”White evangelical voters were central to Mr. Trump’s first election, and he remains overwhelmingly popular among them. But a Monmouth University poll in late January and early February found Ron DeSantis, the Republican governor of Florida who has not declared his candidacy for president but appears to be Mr. Trump’s most formidable early rival, leading Mr. Trump by 7 percentage points among self-identified evangelical Republican voters in a head-to-head contest.It was an early sign that as he makes a bid for a return to office, Mr. Trump must reckon with a base that has changed since his election in 2016 — and because of it.Some of the changes clearly benefit Mr. Trump, but others may have weakened his hold on evangelical voters and the prominent evangelical pastors who are often seen as power brokers in Republican politics.The Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision in June, which overturned the constitutional right to an abortion, has shifted much of the fight to further roll back abortion rights — the near-singular political aim of conservative evangelicals for more than four decades — to the state level. Last year, Mr. Trump disparaged Republican candidates for focusing too much on the “abortion issue,” a statement that was viewed as a betrayal by some evangelicals on the right and an invitation to seek other options.Conservative evangelical politics have both expanded and moved sharply rightward, animated by a new slate of issues like opposition to race and history curriculums in schools and L.G.B.T.Q. rights, and shaped by the Covid-19 lockdowns of 2020 and 2021, which some pastors rallied against as a grave affront to religious freedom. These are areas where Mr. DeSantis has aggressively staked his claim.Who’s Running for President in 2024?Card 1 of 7The race begins. More

    • 50 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      The Abortion Pill Fight

      by

      Since Roe v. Wade ended, the battle over legal abortion has largely shifted to access to pills.Since the end of Roe v. Wade last June, access to abortion pills has muted some of the effect of the severe restrictions on abortion that 14 states have imposed. Abortion opponents have responded by trying to reduce access to those pills. The resulting struggle has become the main battle to watch in the post-Roe landscape.Today’s newsletter examines the latest developments — including a court ruling expected soon — and explains what’s likely to happen next.How pill access grewThe most effective and safest method of medication abortion requires two drugs. The first, mifepristone, ends the pregnancy. The second, misoprostol, causes cramping and bleeding to empty the uterus, like a miscarriage. In approving this regimen in 2000, the F.D.A. imposed restrictions on mifepristone because of questions then about its safety. Among other rules, patients had to visit a clinic, doctor’s office or hospital to receive the medication.In 2021, during the pandemic and after President Biden took office, the F.D.A. lifted the in-person requirement. The shift opened a new avenue for telemedicine abortions. In about 30 states, women could legally end their pregnancies at home, with pills prescribed through an online consultation and mailed to them. If they had questions, they could call a private national hotline to talk to medical professionals.After the Supreme Court overturned Roe last year, demand surged for abortion pills by mail. An international organization, Aid Access, provided prescriptions for the pills from European doctors, often filled in India, to patients in states with bans. Overseas pharmacies, advertising online, also ship abortion pills without a prescription to every state.These offshore routes to access, which operate in a legal gray area in states with abortion bans, will probably remain open. But they carry potential legal risks for women and it can take a few weeks for the drugs to arrive from overseas, a delay that can create problems since medication abortion is more effective and less likely to cause complications early in pregnancy.How opponents are fighting backOpponents of abortion have a bold counterstrategy. They want to block the use of mifepristone not only in states with abortion bans but also nationwide.In November, anti-abortion organizations and doctors sued in Texas to challenge the F.D.A.’s approval of medication abortion 23 years ago. They argue that mifepristone is unsafe. In fact, research has clearly established the safety and efficacy of the F.D.A.’s approved regimen. Serious complications are possible but rare. So, on the merits, the suit may seem far-fetched.But the plaintiffs made sure to file suit (a practice some experts call “judge shopping”) in a division of a Federal District Court with one judge, a Trump appointee named Matthew Kacsmaryk who has longstanding views against abortion. If he blocks the F.D.A.’s approval, it would be unprecedented, experts said in an amicus brief.The drugstore battleSeparate from the Texas case, the national divide over abortion is playing out in pharmacies.In January, Walgreens, CVS and other companies said they would apply for a newly available certification from the F.D.A. to dispense both drugs in states where abortion remains legal. But 21 Republican attorneys general — including four in states where abortion is still legal — threatened legal action against the pharmacy chains. Walgreens promised not to provide the pills within those states.The chains see an opportunity for another new market. Their interest signals that medication abortion is becoming mainstream. In large parts of the country, that’s unwelcome.What’s nextOther lawsuits are trying to protect access to abortion pills. One, filed by states where Democrats are in power, asks a judge to affirm the F.D.A.’s approval of mifepristone and remove the remaining restrictions on the medication. Another, by a U.S. manufacturer of the medication, is challenging state bans on the pill.For now, mifepristone and misoprostol remain widely and quickly available in states where abortion is legal. And the medications can be obtained through avenues like Aid Access, with a delay, in states where abortion is not legal.Taken together, the drugs are more than 95 percent effective, research shows. Alternatively, people can take only misoprostol in higher doses, but this method is 88 percent effective, according to a study in the U.S. published last month, and is also more likely to cause side effects like nausea and diarrhea.A ruling from Judge Kacsmaryk could come any day. If he issues a nationwide injunction to block the provision of mifepristone, his ruling could increase health risks and physical discomfort for women.“The Texas lawsuit is based on the false claim that mifepristone is unsafe and leads to a high need for physician intervention,” Abigail Aiken, one author of the new study, said. “And yet, if we move to a miso-alone protocol, the need for physician intervention will, if anything, be increased.”A nationwide injunction would be immediately appealed. It’s also possible that Judge Kacsmaryk can’t actually stop the legal provision of mifepristone, at least in the short term, three law professors argue. Congress set procedures for the F.D.A. to withdraw approval from a drug, and the process takes time to follow. A judge can order a review but shouldn’t have the power to circumvent the rules, the law professors say.The F.D.A. also has a workaround: When the risk is low, the agency can give manufacturers permission to keep distributing products, like some baby formula, which violate the law in some way.It’s a strange idea: a federal agency using its discretion to avoid enforcing a court ruling. But it could also be the only way for women in the U.S. to continue accessing the safest and most effective method of medication abortion — as long as a president who supports abortion access is in office.For moreThe New York Legislature is considering a bill to protect clinicians who mail abortion pills to patients elsewhere.See the states where restrictions on abortion pills could have the most impact.Makena, the only drug aimed at preventing preterm birth, will be pulled from the market after F.D.A. advisers said it largely didn’t help.THE LATEST NEWSInternationalThe Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline in Germany.Krisztian Bocsi/BloombergIntelligence suggests that a pro-Ukrainian group sabotaged gas pipelines linking Russia to Western Europe last year. Ukraine’s government denies involvement.Millions of people in France demonstrated against a plan to raise the retirement age. The resistance stems from a commitment to work-life balance.Mexican authorities found four missing Americans: two killed by gunmen, two kidnapped but alive.The Mexican military illegally used surveillance tools against citizens trying to expose its misdeeds.An Israeli raid in the West Bank aimed at arresting a shooting suspect ended in a firefight, killing six Palestinians.PoliticsBiden will propose tax increases for corporations and high earners to reduce deficits over the next decade.“The whole thing seems insane”: More messages from Rupert Murdoch and Fox News hosts reveal their skepticism of Donald Trump’s false claims of a stolen election.House Republicans promoted Tucker Carlson’s report falsely portraying the Jan. 6 attack as largely peaceful, while Senate Republicans condemned it.Oklahoma voters decided against legalizing recreational marijuana.Other Big StoriesTo slow inflation, the Federal Reserve will probably raise interest rates more than projected.The Justice Department sued to block JetBlue Airways from buying Spirit Airlines, saying a merger would reduce competition.“There’s a lot of value to be won or lost”: Tech giants are competing to use A.I. for their benefit.OpinionsPrime Minister Narendra Modi’s war against Kashmiri journalism portends a larger campaign to limit press freedom in India, Anuradha Bhasin writes.ChatGPT is a statistical engine based on big data. True intelligence is creative, explanatory and moral, Noam Chomsky, Ian Roberts and Jeffrey Watumull write.MORNING READSMartin Schneider is a firefighter who moonlights as a pitcher.Nina Riggio for The New York TimesA scrappy nine: The Czech Republic’s roster for the World Baseball Classic is full of guys with regular jobs.No spots: Parking lots are shrinking across the U.S.Keanu Reeves’s latest role: He’s a fungus-killing bacterial compound (sort of).Ask Well: Is cannabis good or bad for sleep?Advice from Wirecutter: These stain-resistant shirts repel almost everything.Lives Lived: David Lindley’s mastery of stringed instruments made him a sought-after sideman in 1970s Los Angeles, and his long association with Jackson Browne won him a degree of stardom. Lindley died at 78.SPORTS NEWS FROM THE ATHLETICJackson hits the market: The Ravens placed a nonexclusive franchise tag on Lamar Jackson, which means the quarterback can field offers from other teams. It’s a big risk for Baltimore.Heels in danger: A microscope is focused on North Carolina this week, as the Tar Heels try to sneak into the N.C.A.A. Tournament.High stakes: Daniel Jones will remain the Giants’ quarterback after agreeing to a four-year, $160 million deal. ARTS AND IDEAS The restored Procuratie Vecchie in Venice.Richard DaviesArchitecture’s top prizeDavid Chipperfield, a British architect known for merging modern spaces with historic buildings, won the Pritzker Prize.The jury cited Chipperfield’s recent restoration of the 16th-century Procuratie Vecchie in Venice, a beloved landmark on St. Mark’s Square, and noted his renovation of the Neues Museum in Berlin, which saved elements of the World War II-damaged building. “With it, Berlin has one of the finest public buildings in Europe,” the Times architecture critic Michael Kimmelman wrote in 2009.PLAY, WATCH, EATWhat to CookDavid Malosh for The New York TimesParmesan cabbage soup, thickened with rice, is nourishing.What to Watch“History of the World, Part II” is a screwball tour of civilization.What to ReadThese new psychological thrillers deliver chills.Late NightStephen Colbert called Kari Lake the “governor of the state of denial.”Now Time to PlayThe pangram from yesterday’s Spelling Bee was microfilm. Here is today’s puzzle.Here’s today’s Mini Crossword, and a clue: On edge (five letters).And here’s today’s Wordle. Thanks for spending part of your morning with The Times. See you tomorrow.P.S. Iran cut diplomatic ties with Britain after demanding that its government denounce Salman Rushdie and “The Satanic Verses,” The Times reported 34 years ago today.Here’s today’s front page.“The Daily” is about the Nord Stream pipelines.Matthew Cullen, Lauren Hard, Lauren Jackson, Claire Moses, Ian Prasad Philbrick, Tom Wright-Piersanti and Ashley Wu contributed to The Morning. You can reach the team at themorning@nytimes.com.Sign up here to get this newsletter in your inbox. More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Walgreens limits abortion pills sales after pressure from conservative states

      by

      Walgreens limits abortion pills sales after pressure from conservative statesRepublican attorneys general threatened the company with legal consequences for sending pills by mailWalgreens will not distribute the abortion pill mifepristone in nearly two dozen conservative states after Republican attorneys general threatened the largest US pharmacy companies with legal consequences for sending abortion pills by mail.South Carolina woman arrested for allegedly using pills to end pregnancyRead moreThe decision, first reported by Politico, came weeks after the attorneys general sent a letter to Walgreens and CVS arguing that sending abortion pills by mail would violate federal law and abortion laws in those states. A spokesperson for Walgreens said the move was in response to that letter.Walgreens had previously announced plans to become a certified pharmacy to dispense the pill in jurisdictions where it was legal to do so after the US Food and Drug Administration opted to allow retail pharmacies to dispense mifepristone pills, including by mail.But on Thursday the company confirmed to Politico that it would not dispense abortion pills by mail or within their stores in 20 states, including some states where abortion and medication abortion are legal.“There is currently complexity around this issue in Kansas and elsewhere,” Fraser Engerman, Walgreens’ senior director of external relations, told the outlet.Top Democrats were critical of the move. Adam Schiff described Walgreens as caving. “So much for putting a priority on the health of their customers,” he said on Twitter.Senator Amy Schumer said, “This is exactly why we need to codify the protections of Roe v Wade and guarantee the right to access care.”Abortion pills are a critical part of reproductive care nationwide. Of all US abortions, more than half are now with pills rather than with a procedure, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights. But medication abortion has drawn increasing attention since the supreme court’s decision to overturn Roe v Wade last June.The FDA has limited dispensing of mifepristone to a subset of specialty offices and clinics due to safety concerns for more than 20 years. The agency has repeatedly eased restrictions and expanded access, increasing demand even as state laws make the pills harder to get for many women.But the announcement from Walgreens suggests that mifepristone access may not expand as broadly as federal regulators intended in January. Typically, the FDA’s authority to regulate prescription drug access has gone unchallenged. But more than a dozen states now have laws restricting abortion broadly – and the pills specifically – following last year’s supreme court decision overturning the federal right to abortion.Attorneys general from conservative states have also argued that shipments of mifepristone violate a 19th century law that prohibited sending items used in abortion through the mail.An anti-abortion group filed a federal lawsuit in Texas in November seeking to revoke mifepristone’s approval, claiming the FDA approved the drug 23 years ago without adequate evidence of safety.A federal judge could rule soon. If he sides with abortion opponents, mifepristone could potentially be removed from the US market. Legal experts foresee years of court battles over access to the pills.TopicsAbortionUS politicsRoe v WadeUS supreme courtLaw (US)newsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Louisiana anti-abortion group calls on doctors to stop denying care exempted by ban

      by

      Louisiana anti-abortion group calls on doctors to stop denying care exempted by banGroup speaks out after hospitals refused to offer treatment for a woman who had a near deadly miscarriage citing ambiguous lawAn influential group in Louisiana that has long opposed abortion access is calling out medical providers and their legal advisers who – for an apparent fear of liability – have cited the state’s ban on most abortions to deny treatments that remain legal.The group spoke out after hospitals in the state’s capital, Baton Rouge, refused to provide treatments for a woman who had a near deadly miscarriage.The treatments which Kaitlyn Joshua needed were similar to an abortion, and her doctors feared being prosecuted, citing purported ambiguities in the ban on terminating most pregnancies which took effect in Louisiana after the US supreme court last year overturned the nationwide abortion rights granted by Roe v Wade.Even though Louisiana has some of the tightest restrictions against abortion in the US, Joshua was legally entitled to the care she sought under an exception to the ban which involves miscarriages, Sarah Zagorski of Louisiana Right for Life said.Zagorski, whose organization has been involved in anti-abortion legislation since 1970, said it is clear under Louisiana’s abortion ban that it is legal to provide and receive miscarriage treatments, even if they closely resemble some abortions.“It was just a gross misunderstanding of the law from the practitioners handling the case, unfortunately,” Zagorski said.In a recent interview with the Guardian, Zagorski said the public in general urgently needs more education on the exceptions to the abortion ban in a state which has the highest maternal mortality rate in the US. While she stopped short of saying what her organization might be able to contribute that effort, she did say it was imperative for medical providers and their legal teams to take it upon themselves to study and comprehend the exceptions to the abortion ban in Louisiana, especially in light of a case like the one centering on Joshua.Joshua for her part has retained an attorney, though neither she nor the lawyer would comment to the Guardian on what actions they are possibly contemplating against any providers who turned Joshua away.“The law itself is very specific about this,” Zagorski added. “This should not have been how this happened.”Louisiana’s abortion ban states, in part: “Abortion shall not mean any one or more of the following acts, if performed by a physician: …The removal of a dead unborn child or the inducement or delivery of the uterine contents in case of a positive diagnosis, certified in writing in the woman’s medical record along with the results of an obstetric ultrasound test, that the pregnancy has ended or is in the unavoidable and untreatable process of ending due to spontaneous miscarriage, also known in medical terminology as spontaneous abortion, missed abortion, inevitable abortion, incomplete abortion, or septic abortion.”To the author of the ban, the Louisiana state senator Katrina Jackson, the language makes it clear that miscarriage treatment is distinct from an abortion. Though she did not speak with the Guardian, she has previously released a statement to National Public Radio and its local New Orleans affiliate, WWNO, saying that nothing in the law bans women from receiving miscarriage treatments.But Jackson has not indicated whether she may try to at all clarify the legislation she authored. She first faced calls to do at least that after Louisiana woman Nancy Davis, who was carrying a skull-less fetus that would die within a short time of birth, was denied an abortion in the state and had to travel to New York to terminate the pregnancy.Abortion access advocates have similarly rallied around Joshua.At six weeks pregnant with her second child, Joshua called a physician group in Baton Rouge – her state’s capital – to schedule her first prenatal appointment, but the clinic denied her an appointment. The group said it was no longer providing prenatal care for women under 12 weeks of pregnancy because it thought it was too risky in light of the abortion ban that took effect in Louisiana after last year’s overturning of Roe v Wade to be ambiguous.Miscarriages most frequently occur during the first trimester of pregnancy, and they require the same medical procedures as abortions, Joshua – who declined to speak to the Guardian – was told. Joshua told WWNO that the clinic did not want to face possibly being investigated if their miscarriage care was interpreted as an abortion.As a Black woman, Joshua told WWNO that she was aware of maternal-related deaths in her state. A 2018 report by the Louisiana Department of Health found that Black women are four times more likely than their white counterparts to die during childbirth, so she decided to schedule her next appointment with a Black obstetrician.Yet before her appointment, Joshua bled heavily and felt severe pain between her 10th and 11th week of pregnancy. She went to Woman’s Hospital in Baton Rouge for immediate care and received an ultrasound that showed her fetus had a faint heartbeat and had stopped growing three or four weeks earlier.Joshua’s pregnancy hormones, meanwhile, were abnormally low. Nonetheless, the hospital would not confirm that she was having a miscarriage.By the next evening, Joshua ended up at Baton Rouge general hospital after losing a large amount of blood and tissue. A female doctor told Joshua that there appeared to be a cyst in her ultrasound and questioned if she was pregnant.Joshua told WWNO that the doctor recommended waiting at home for the miscarriage to pass, if this was in fact a spontaneous abortion. However, the doctor refused to give her treatments that would lessen the pain and quicken the miscarriage.“She stated that they’re not going to put … ‘spontaneous abortion’ [anywhere] because that would then flag an investigation on them,” Joshua told WWNO.Zagorski says it’s natural for things to be confusing for providers and patients after last year’s landmark supreme court decision. Nonetheless, Joshua’s ordeal was separate and apart and clearly fit the built-in exceptions, she said.For the record, Zagorski said neither her group nor the ban support aborting a child with life-threatening medical conditions, as seen in the Nancy Davis case. “We believe that even in dire severe cases like that, where the baby is likely to not live long, that it is still a human life and there are ways that a woman can deliver naturally and have hospice care for that baby,” Zagorski said.Despite that stance, Louisiana’s state health department issued an emergency rule late last month that allows women to terminate pregnancies if their unborn child suffers from one or more of 25 listed medical conditions, including acrania. The medical diagnoses remain an exception to the abortion law for at most 180 days.Abortion access advocates would prefer Louisiana and other similarly situated states to do away with their bans altogether. But the legislatures of Louisiana and those other states are controlled by conservatives who oppose abortion.TopicsAbortionLouisianaUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 225 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Dining across the divide US special: ‘She tried to educate me on why AR-15s aren’t really military-style weapons’

      by

      Dining across the divide US special: ‘She tried to educate me on why AR-15s aren’t really military-style weapons’ One is anti-abortion and pro-guns. The other is pro-choice and thinks ‘war tools’ shouldn’t be in the hands of the public. Could they agree to disagree?Heidi, 62, Price, UtahOccupation Retired school teacherVoting record Usually DemocratAmuse bouche Heidi is an enthusiastic archaeologist and anthropologist. “We can learn a lot about how to use the land and protect it,” she saysJanalee, 59, South Jordan, UtahOccupation Campaigner for God, guns and urban green spaceVoting record Has previously voted Democrat or Independent. Now straight-ticket RepublicanAmuse bouche Janalee’s grandfather, Jesse, had five wives and 44 children. She has 80,000 cousins, she says, “like a multilevel marketing scheme”For startersJanalee We shared an appetizer of loaded rock chips, then I had an omelet with vegetables, bacon and sausage. I was worried we were going to fight. I told Heidi I lost my best friend over Donald Trump, but she wasn’t mean to me about supporting him. It never felt confrontational. We weren’t representing corporations; we were there as grandmothers who care.Heidi I had a Reuben sandwich and fries. Janalee told me she’s a Trump person. I said that’s OK. She said something about a stolen election. I thought, “Oh good grief.” I don’t think the election was stolen. A lot of people like Trump because of his personality, but that’s the reason I don’t like him.The big beefHeidi Janalee tried to educate me on why AR-15s aren’t really military-style weapons. I don’t have a problem with handguns, shotguns and rifles, but these new fancy guns – the ARs, the Uzis that became a problem in 90s – should not be in the hands of the public. It’s a war tool and we just don’t need it. I said no to guns in the classroom, absolutely not.Janalee I prefer to talk about people violence not gun violence. A gun doesn’t do anything – it can just sit on a table fully loaded for 1,000 years. An AR-15 isn’t a military weapon. We have a constitutional right to own them. We did agree that schools should have some kind of sign, maybe like: “Warning to criminals: we protect our children”. We agreed that the news media is irresponsible in the way they report stories about guns.Heidi I agree that some news channels only focus on the group that watches them. That’s true on the left and right. They fearmonger and rile people up.Sharing plateskip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionJanalee Abortion was the subject that scared us both the most. She said women should be able to get an abortion. So I said: “What’s your understanding of the supreme court ruling?” She said: “To turn it back to the states.” I said: “Yes, it did.” Heidi asked if I could bend on abortion. She said: “Maybe we could agree on 10 weeks?” I said: “OK, maybe we can agree on 10 weeks, but the methods used to kill babies are still barbaric.”Heidi Janalee is totally against abortion. I think every women should have the right to make that decision, and there should be a federal right to abortion up to 10 weeks to ensure the safety of the woman. Most women know they’re pregnant by eight weeks. If you go beyond that, then you have to decide to keep the baby or give it up for adoption. There needs to be more support for women to make that decision privately.For aftersJanalee Heidi is a teacher so I listened and learned a lot from her about how slavery is taught in schools. We learned about it in elementary school. Heidi said high school students probably need a refresher course. I remembered that in school we created a slave cell as a classroom exercise. Someone would be the enslaver and someone the slave. It was really powerful. I said: “Why don’t we do role play about the civil war? One side fights to keep slavery, and the other to end it.” Because America ended slavery. It’s not the evil empire. But I’m sure slavery still exists, like in China.Heidi We have to learn about slavery and other bad things that happened in this country, so we don’t repeat them. Janalee said: “Well, what about other countries?” I said that can be done in a world history class. I just stressed: teach the facts. I want students to think on their own. But we shouldn’t be doing slavery role play.TakeawaysHeidi We live in a conservative state, but we’re pretty mellow about it. People have different opinions, but we’re not going to get in your face about it. We respected each other’s opinions and considered each other’s proposals. Sometimes you have to give a little to get what you want.Janalee Heidi was delightful. We agreed that we need to come together as Americans and stop being divided. We felt like some kind of power is trying to separate us and keep us fighting. We wondered, why is this happening? Additional reporting: Kitty Drake Heidi and Janalee ate at Balance Rock Eatery & Pub in Helper, Utah.Want to meet someone from across the divide? Find out how to take partTopicsLife and styleDining across the divide US specialSocial trendsUS politicsAbortionWomenSlaveryfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      In Wisconsin Supreme Court Race, Democratic Turnout Was High

      by

      Democratic turnout was high in the Tuesday primary for the State Supreme Court, ahead of a costly general election that will decide the future of abortion rights and gerrymandered maps in the state.MILWAUKEE — Eight months after the nation’s highest court made abortion illegal in Wisconsin, a liberal State Supreme Court candidate who made reproductive rights the centerpiece of her campaign won more votes than her two conservative opponents combined.The Wisconsin Supreme Court primary election on Tuesday was a triumph for the state’s liberals. In addition to capturing 54 percent of the vote in the four-way, officially nonpartisan primary, they will face a conservative opponent in the general election who was last seen losing a 2020 court election by double digits. It proved to be a best-case scenario for Wisconsin Democrats, who for years have framed the April 4 general election for the State Supreme Court as their last chance to stop Republicans from solidifying their grip on the state. Republicans took control of the state government in 2011 and drew themselves legislative maps to ensure perpetual power over the state’s Legislature, despite the 50-50 nature of Wisconsin politics.“If Republicans keep their hammerlock on the State Supreme Court majority, Wisconsin remains stuck in an undemocratic doom loop,” said Ben Wikler, the chairman of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin.Now, with an opportunity to retake a majority on the State Supreme Court that could undo Wisconsin’s 1849 ban on nearly all abortions and throw out the state’s gerrymandered legislative maps, Democrats have the general election matchup they wanted. Janet Protasiewicz (pronounced pro-tuh-SAY-witz), a liberal circuit court judge in Milwaukee County, will face off against Daniel Kelly, a conservative former State Supreme Court justice who lost a 2020 election for his seat by nearly 11 percentage points — a colossal spread in such an evenly divided state. Abortion rights demonstrators gathered in Madison, Wis., in January 2022. Judge Protasiewicz has sought to put abortion, which is now illegal in most cases in Wisconsin, at the center of the campaign. Jamie Kelter Davis for The New York TimesTuesday’s results suggested that the state’s Democratic voters are more energized than Republicans. While the number of ballots cast statewide represented 29 percent of the 2020 presidential electorate, the turnout in Dane County was 40 percent of the 2020 total, a striking figure for a judicial election. In Dane County, which includes the liberal state capital of Madison, Joseph R. Biden Jr. took three out of every four votes.Politics Across the United StatesFrom the halls of government to the campaign trail, here’s a look at the political landscape in America.Black Mayors: The Black mayors of New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago and Houston have banded together as they confront violent crime, homelessness and other similar challenges.Wisconsin Supreme Court: Democratic turnout was high in the primary for the swing seat on the court, ahead of a general election that will decide the future of abortion rights and gerrymandered maps in the state.Mississippi Court Plan: Republican lawmakers want to create a separate court system served by a state-run police force for mainly Black parts of the capital, Jackson, reviving old racial divisions.Michigan G.O.P.: Michigan Republicans picked Kristina Karamo to lead the party in the battleground state, fully embracing an election-denying Trump acolyte after her failed bid for secretary of state.Republicans will also face the financial might of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, which on Wednesday transferred $2.5 million to the Protasiewicz campaign. Justice Kelly did not spend a dollar on television advertising during the primary, but he was aided by $2.8 million in spending from a super PAC funded by the conservative billionaire Richard Uihlein, according to AdImpact, a media tracking firm. Democrats also helped Justice Kelly by spending $2.2 million to attack his conservative opponent, Jennifer Dorow, a circuit court judge in Waukesha County. Justice Kelly has said he expects Mr. Uihlein’s PAC, Fair Courts America, to spend another $20 million on his behalf for the general election. That money will not go as far as the cash transferred directly to the Protasiewicz campaign because candidates can buy television advertising at far lower rates than PACs. Wisconsin’s conservatives, who have controlled the court since 2008, fear a rollback not just of their favorable maps but also of a host of Republican-friendly policies that were ushered in while Scott Walker was governor, including changes to the state’s labor and voting laws. “She’s going to impart her values upon Wisconsin regardless of what the law is — does that seem like democracy to you?” said Eric Toney, the district attorney for Fond du Lac County, who was the Republican nominee for attorney general last year. “This isn’t Republicans and Democrats. It’s democracy and the rule of law that is on the line.”There is also the question of how Wisconsin Republicans coalesce after their second bruising primary contest in six months. Throughout the campaign, Justice Kelly declined to say that he would back Judge Dorow in the general election, while her supporters flatly said that he would lose the general election.It was a bit of a replay of the governor’s race last year, when bitter intraparty feelings remained after Tim Michels, with former President Donald J. Trump’s endorsement, defeated former Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch in the primary. Ms. Kleefisch then did little to encourage her supporters to back Mr. Michels, who later lost the general election to Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat.“With Michels and Kleefisch, there wasn’t that come-together-to-Jesus moment,” said Stephen L. Nass, a Republican state senator from Whitewater. “I think people realize now that was a mistake. It should have happened. And now we’ve got to do it.”Wisconsin’s Supreme Court was one vote away from overturning Mr. Biden’s 2020 victory in the state, deciding in a series of 4-to-3 decisions to reject Mr. Trump’s efforts to invalidate 200,000 votes from the state’s two largest Democratic counties.Judge Protasiewicz speaking at her primary night party on Tuesday in Milwaukee. She has openly declared her views in support of abortion rights and against Wisconsin’s gerrymandered legislative maps.Caleb Alvarado for The New York Times“What our Supreme Court did with the 2020 presidential election kind of turned people’s stomachs,” Judge Protasiewicz said in an interview on Tuesday over coffee and paczki, a Polish pastry served on Fat Tuesday. “We were one vote away from overturning the results of the 2020 presidential election.”Judge Protasiewicz has pioneered what may be a new style of judicial campaigning. She has openly proclaimed her views on abortion rights (she’s for them) and the state’s legislative maps (she’s against them). That has appeared to offend Justice Kelly, who devoted chunks of his Tuesday victory speech to condemning the idea that Judge Protasiewicz had predetermined opinions about subjects likely to come before the court.“If we do not resist this assault on our Constitution and our liberties, we will lose the rule of law and find ourselves saddled with the rule of Janet,” Justice Kelly told supporters in Waukesha County. But Judge Protasiewicz has considerable incentives to put her views on hot-button topics front and center for voters. (She calls them “my values” to remain within a law that prohibits judicial candidates from plainly stating how they would rule on specific cases.) Democrats learned in last year’s midterm contests just how potent and motivating abortion is for their voters. Judge Protasiewicz, in the interview, recounted how voters had come to her campaign stops wearing sweatshirts bearing the words “Fair maps now.” “The voters are demanding more,” said Rebecca Dallet, a liberal Wisconsin Supreme Court justice, at the Protasiewicz victory party on Tuesday in Milwaukee. “People want to know more about their candidates. And I think there’s a way to communicate that without saying anything that shouldn’t be said about future cases.”Justice Kelly’s views are hardly opaque, either.Appointed to the court by Mr. Walker in 2016 before losing his re-election bid in 2020, Justice Kelly went on to work for the Republican National Committee as an “election integrity” consultant. He has the endorsement of the state’s three major anti-abortion groups.Justice Kelly speaking at a party on Tuesday night in Okauchee Lake, Wis. He said in an interview that only state legislators, not the State Supreme Court, could overturn Wisconsin’s abortion ban.Jamie Kelter Davis for The New York TimesDuring an interview on Monday night in Sheboygan, Justice Kelly said only legislators could overturn the state’s 1849 abortion ban, enacted decades before women were allowed to vote. He said that complaints about the maps amounted to a “political problem” and that they were legally sound.Yet in the same interview, conducted in the back of a bar during a meeting of the Sheboygan County Republican Party, Justice Kelly declined to say whether he supported the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s ruling in December 2020 that rejected Mr. Trump’s attempt to overturn the state’s presidential election results.“If I were to say it was decided correctly, then the hullabaloo would be, ‘Justice Kelly doesn’t care about election integrity,’” he said. “If I say it was decided incorrectly, the hullabaloo would be, ‘Justice Kelly favors overthrowing in presidential elections.’ And so I don’t think there’s any way to answer that question in a way that would not get overcome by extraneous noise.”Still, he said he had “no reason to believe” Wisconsin’s 2020 election was not decided properly.Since Justice Kelly lost in 2020, he and other Republicans have taken it as an article of faith that the wide margin of his defeat could be attributed to the Democratic presidential primary, which fell on the same day. Several Republicans asserted that Wisconsin’s Democratic Party leadership had colluded with Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, whose presidential campaign was by then a lost cause, to remain in the race to lift the chances of the liberal candidate, Jill Karofsky.“It still pains me to admit that, as it turns out, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders combined can turn out more votes than little old me,” Justice Kelly said Monday.Faiz Shakir, who was the campaign manager for the Sanders campaign, said in an interview that Mr. Sanders had indeed decided to suspend his campaign and concede to Mr. Biden days before Wisconsin’s April 2020 primary, but encouraged his supporters to vote in the primary anyway to influence the court election.One thing that is clear is that the next six weeks in Wisconsin politics will be dominated by the Protasiewicz campaign’s effort to place abortion rights at the center of the race. The issue will feature heavily in her television advertising, while Republicans will try to change the subject to crime — or anything else. “Everybody is very emotional about abortion, so that’s the tail that’s going to wag the dog,” said Aaron R. Guenther, a conservative Christian minister from Sheboygan. “It’s not what all of life is about, but it’s what the election is going to be about.”Dan Simmons contributed reporting from Okauchee Lake, Wis. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Liberal Judge Is First to Advance in Major Wisconsin Supreme Court Election

      by

      Janet Protasiewicz, a liberal judge from Milwaukee County, will face one of two conservatives in a race that could tilt the balance of the court, with abortion rights, gerrymandered maps and more in the balance.MILWAUKEE — Janet Protasiewicz, a liberal Milwaukee County judge, won her race on Tuesday, according to The Associated Press, and advanced to the general election for the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the most consequential American election on the 2023 calendar.On April 4, Judge Protasiewicz will face one of two conservatives for a 10-year term on the court: Daniel Kelly, a former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice, or Jennifer Dorow, a Waukesha County judge known for presiding over the trial last fall of a man who killed six people by driving through a 2021 Christmas parade. Late Tuesday, The A.P. had not yet projected which candidate would advance along with Judge Protasiewicz.The winner of the officially nonpartisan race will tip the balance of the state’s seven-member Supreme Court, which has been controlled by conservatives since 2008. If Judge Protasiewicz prevails, the court will have a four-member liberal majority that would be likely to overturn the state’s 1849 law forbidding abortion in nearly all cases, redraw Wisconsin’s heavily gerrymandered legislative and congressional maps, and influence how the state’s 10 electoral votes are awarded after the 2024 presidential election.“Everything we care about is going to be determined by who wins this election,” Judge Protasiewicz told supporters in a victory speech on Tuesday night. Influential Democrats in Wisconsin coalesced long ago behind Judge Protasiewicz (pronounced pro-tuh-SAY-witz), who has endorsements from a range of top party officials and de facto support from many others. The other liberal candidate in the race, Everett Mitchell, a judge in Dane County, which includes Madison, lagged far behind the other three major candidates in fund-raising.More on Abortion Issues in AmericaAbortion Bills: More than 300 abortion-related bills — a majority of which seek restrictions — have been proposed around the United States. Doctors are the most vulnerable to punishment.A Missed Opportunity: Abortion rights activists say President Biden’s State of the Union speech could have done more to address what they view as a national health crisis.State Constitutions: Divergent decisions by state supreme courts in South Carolina and Idaho displayed how volatile the fight over abortion rights will be, as advocates and opponents push and pull over state constitutions.A New Lawsuit: A company that makes an abortion pill filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of West Virginia’s ban on the medication. A wave of similar cases are expected to be filed in coming months.Republicans split between Justice Kelly, who lost a 2020 election for a full term after being appointed in 2016 by Gov. Scott Walker, and Judge Dorow, whom Mr. Walker appointed to the Waukesha court.The fight for conservative votes grew increasingly bitter in the closing days before Tuesday’s primary election. Justice Kelly said in interviews on conservative talk radio and at campaign stops that he would not commit to endorsing Judge Dorow if she advanced to the general election, while Judge Dorow’s supporters argued that Justice Kelly was unelectable based on his performance in 2020, when he lost by 10 percentage points.The race is all but certain to become the most expensive judicial election in American history, topping the $15 million spent on a 2004 race for the Illinois Supreme Court. Already, more than $8.7 million has been spent on television and digital advertising in the Supreme Court race, according to AdImpact, a media-tracking firm.Officials in both parties expect tens of millions more to be spent by each side during the six-week general election.Justice Kelly has used his deep-pocketed supporters as a reason to vote for him in the primary. He told conservatives gathered at a Republican Party dinner this month in Sawyer County that they should back him because he had the support of the billionaire Uihlein family, which has pledged to spend millions of dollars on his behalf. Justice Kelly said the Uihleins would not back Judge Dorow in the general election.“If it’s not me in the general election, I don’t think that money just moves over to Jennifer,” Justice Kelly said. “It just won’t be spent. So if I’m not the candidate in the general election, Jennifer will jump in completely unarmed when the left is going to spend up to $25 million.”The state’s Democrats and Judge Protasiewicz’s campaign believe Judge Dorow would be a stronger general election opponent. A Better Wisconsin Together, a Democratic super PAC, spent more than $2 million on television ads before the primary attacking Judge Dorow. The Uihleins’ super PAC, Fair Courts America, spent $2.7 million backing Mr. Kelly and attacking Judge Protasiewicz. More

    • 138 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      What to Watch For in a Consequential Court Election in Wisconsin

      by

      Voters are going to the polls today in the primary election for a swing seat on the state’s Supreme Court, with abortion rights, gerrymandered maps and more at stake.BELOIT, Wis. — It is a funny thing about American politics that for one night, the nation’s most important campaign of 2023 descended on Cheezhead Brewing, a tavern where about 50 Republicans gathered to discuss the Wisconsin Supreme Court race.Standing in front of a Green Bay Packers logo made from green, gold and white bottle caps, Jennifer Dorow, a Waukesha County judge who is one of two conservatives running in Tuesday’s four-way primary, told the crowd on Sunday night that “fairness and impartiality are squarely on the ballot this election.”What fairness and impartiality mean, however, depends entirely on one’s political stripes.Democrats say Wisconsin’s Supreme Court, controlled by conservatives since 2008, has enacted unfair legislative maps that have allowed Republicans to take near-supermajority control of the State Assembly and Senate in an evenly divided state — making nearly everything the State Legislature does unfair. The leading liberal candidate in the race, Janet Protasiewicz, a Milwaukee County judge, calls the maps “rigged” and has said she would vote to throw them out.For conservatives like Judge Dorow, publicly telegraphing one’s intentions on the court and prejudging cases are violations of the judicial oath.But few in Wisconsin are fooled about the stakes of this officially nonpartisan race for an open seat on the seven-member court. If a liberal candidate wins a 10-year term, the court will tip in liberals’ favor, and the state would be likely to throw out its 1849 law banning abortion in nearly all cases and to redraw its legislative maps. If a conservative wins, abortion will remain illegal and Republicans will retain a lock on the Legislature for at least another decade.A protest for abortion rights last month in the rotunda at Wisconsin’s Capitol. The Supreme Court race could decide the fate of Wisconsin’s abortion ban.Jamie Kelter Davis for The New York TimesThe top two candidates from Tuesday’s primary will advance to the general election on April 4. As voters cast their ballots, here is what’s happening in the race.The G.O.P. establishment is fighting outsiders.Last fall, Wisconsin’s Republican establishment rallied behind Daniel Kelly, a former Supreme Court justice who, in 2020, lost a bid for re-election — just the second sitting justice to do so since 1958.But whispers soon emerged on the right about Justice Kelly’s ability to win. He lost that 2020 race by 10 percentage points, an enormous margin in battleground Wisconsin, where a three-point victory in a statewide race constitutes a blowout.Around the same time, Judge Dorow was presiding over the most prominent local court case in years — the murder trial of a man eventually convicted of killing six people by driving through a 2021 Christmas parade. She was on the news every night for weeks.Politics Across the United StatesFrom the halls of government to the campaign trail, here’s a look at the political landscape in America.Michigan G.O.P.: Michigan Republicans picked Kristina Karamo to lead the party in the battleground state, fully embracing an election-denying Trump acolyte after her failed bid for secretary of state.Dianne Feinstein: The Democratic senator of California will not run for re-election in 2024, clearing the way for what is expected to be a costly and competitive race to succeed the iconic political figure.Lori Lightfoot: As the mayor of Chicago seeks a second term at City Hall, her administration is overseeing the largest experiment in guaranteed basic income in the nation.Union Support: In places like West Virginia, money from three major laws passed by Congress is pouring into the alternative energy industry and other projects. Democrats hope it will lead to increased union strength.There hasn’t been a Wisconsin Supreme Court race with multiple conservative candidates since the turn of the millennium, and Justice Kelly’s allies were determined to avoid one.“I personally called Jennifer before she entered the race and pleaded with her not to jump in,” Shelley Grogan, an appellate court judge who serves as a Kelly surrogate, told the Cheezhead Brewing audience. “It’s really hard for a conservative to win. So if there’s more than one person interested, they sit down and talk about it and decide who we can all get behind.”(In a subsequent interview, Judge Grogan said she was interested in running for the State Supreme Court in the future. A liberal justice’s term is up in 2025, and a conservative justice’s will expire in 2026.)Jennifer Dorow, a Waukesha County judge, is one of two conservatives running in Tuesday’s four-way primary.Caleb Alvarado for The New York TimesJudge Dorow told the audience she would not wait her turn.“I don’t believe in deciding candidates in a back room,” she said. “I believe it’s important that the voters in the state of Wisconsin do that.”The 2020 election still looms large — for both parties.When the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled, in a series of 4-to-3 votes, to uphold Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s 2020 victory in Wisconsin, it was a conservative justice, Brian Hagedorn, who provided the key vote to reject President Donald J. Trump’s argument to invalidate 200,000 votes.Those decisions have energized Democrats, who are poised to pour tens of millions of dollars behind Judge Protasiewicz (pronounced pro-tuh-SAY-witz). But they have also animated Justice Kelly, who has repeatedly accused Judge Dorow of being the second coming of Justice Hagedorn — a sort of untrustworthy Trojan horse who would betray Republicans when it counts.Justice Kelly, who The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel last week revealed has for two years been paid by the Republican National Committee to work on “election integrity issues,” has repeatedly tied Judge Dorow to Justice Hagedorn. Along with voting against Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the election, Justice Hagedorn sided with several pandemic mitigation efforts by Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, in 2020. Justice Hagedorn has been a reliable conservative vote on most matters, including redistricting, but many on the right have not forgiven him for defying Mr. Trump.“I’m kind of in the same place that I was with Brian Hagedorn, all I have is what she says about herself,” Justice Kelly said at a meeting of Republicans on Monday night in Sheboygan. “Jennifer may very well be a judicial conservative, she might be, I just don’t know because there’s nothing there to tell me that she is.”Justice Hagedorn, in an email, said he was “not interested in commenting at this time.”Republicans are arguing about what it means to be electable.Justice Kelly’s 2020 defeat is the animating feature of Judge Dorow’s campaign.“I’m the only conservative who can win in April,” she wrote on Twitter, linking to a radio advertisement in which one of Milwaukee’s leading conservative talk radio hosts delivered a monologue supporting her candidacy.But besides offering the basic bromides about being a conservative judge who will abide by the Constitution, Judge Dorow has said little else about her candidacy. She has declined nearly all interview requests, and in Beloit a campaign aide said she would respond only to preapproved questions. She did not linger at the bar to speak with voters after her remarks.Judge Janet Protasiewicz is the leading liberal in the officially nonpartisan race.Caleb Alvarado for The New York TimesJustice Kelly has been much more explicit about his political advantages. He has support from the billionaire Uihlein family, whose super PAC, Fair Courts America, has spent $2.7 million on ads backing him and attacking Judge Protasiewicz. Justice Kelly has said major conservative donors will abandon the race if he does not advance to the general election. A spokesman for Fair Courts America did not respond to questions.“You need to be the kind of candidate that will attract the independent expenditures to get the message out across Wisconsin,” Justice Kelly told Republicans gathered at a Lincoln Day dinner in Sawyer County this month. “If it’s not me in the general election, it’s not like that money just moves over to Jennifer. It just won’t be spent. So if I’m not the candidate in the general election, Jennifer will jump in completely unarmed when the left is going to spend upwards of $25 million.”Democrats seem to prefer to face Justice Kelly and the Uihlein money rather than Judge Dorow’s shallower record.A Better Wisconsin Together, a Democratic super PAC, has spent $2 million in TV ads attacking Judge Dorow in the primary but nothing against Justice Kelly. Democratic opposition research has been focused on damaging Judge Dorow, who is less well known but perceived as more likable and reasonable than Justice Kelly by voters in Democratic focus groups.Democrats are vowing not to replay their 2022 Senate race.Last year, Wisconsin Democrats watched as Mandela Barnes, a popular, progressive, young Black candidate coalesced support before losing the general election to Senator Ron Johnson, a better-funded, older white Republican.Determined not to repeat that recent history, the party’s top leaders and fund-raisers coalesced behind Judge Protasiewicz, a white, female career prosecutor and jurist from the suburbs who is not as vulnerable to the types of barely coded attacks that helped doom Mr. Barnes last fall.Judge Protasiewicz built a commanding fund-raising advantage and has opened a wide lead in both parties’ private polling ahead of the primary. She is widely expected to place first on Tuesday, with the other liberal candidate in the race, Everett Mitchell, a more progressive Black judge from Dane County, projected to finish fourth.The near unanimity among Democrats combined with a fractured G.O.P. has Democrats planning and Republicans fearing a mountain of attack ads beginning as soon as Wednesday against whichever conservative candidate advances to a likely matchup with Judge Protasiewicz. A reverse dynamic in August damaged Mr. Barnes, while Mr. Johnson and his allies poured tens of millions into attack ads before the Democrat could recover.“There is no world in which Janet is defined by the right in the first weeks of the race,” said Sachin Chheda, a top strategist on the Protasiewicz campaign. “We are prepared for whatever the results are on Tuesday and will be hitting the pedal to the floor on Wednesday.” More