Law (US)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      This Wisconsin judicial election could decide the next US president | Andy Wong

      by

      The Wisconsin supreme court election – which has been described as the most important election this year – takes place on 4 April, in less than three weeks, and is already the most expensive of its kind in US history. In this race, voters of color will once again be the key to electing a candidate who can safeguard our democracy.The question of whether Trump or another Republican election denier will have a second chance to try to disrupt a democratically decided election – and this time perhaps succeed – could be determined by this one judicial election in the midwest. Recognizing what is at stake, both sides have spent a staggering $27m so far on this race.The election will probably be tight and every vote will count. Wisconsin is majority white, at around 80%, but the state is also at least 20% people of color, according to census data. If Democrats fail to prioritize investing in mobilizing voters of color and inspiring them to turn out to vote, they may lose.Typically, this type of judicial election would barely register as a blip in Wisconsin, let alone gain this much national attention. But the stakes in this battleground state are sky-high, not only because Wisconsin’s future hangs in the balance when it comes to abortion, voting rights, redistricting and elections policy, but also because the judicial seat could be crucial to ensuring a fair presidential election outcome in 2024.In 2020, the Wisconsin supreme court rejected by a one-vote margin an effort by Trump allies to challenge the election result. The state’s seven-member court has been controlled by conservatives since 2008, and the winner of this race will serve a 10-year term.The progressive Milwaukee county circuit judge Janet Protasiewicz is up against conservative Daniel Kelly, a former state supreme court justice who lost his seat in 2020. Kelly is a Trump ally who provided legal support to an effort by Republicans to overturn the 2020 election results through the use of “fake electors”.On the surface, Protasiewicz may seem to be in the better position, funding-wise. According to AdImpact, Protasiewicz campaign has spent $9.1m in the past few weeks on TV ads, and outside groups supporting her have spent $2m.But forces on the right – namely conservative billionaires like Barre Seid, Trump’s “judge whisperer” Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society, and the Uihleins shipping supply magnate family – are expected to inject millions for Kelly, most likely in TV ads painting Protasiewicz as soft on crime. Already $3.9m has poured in for Kelly from these and other outside funders, and there’s plenty more where that came from.Yet Democrats might sleep on properly investing in mobilizing voters. How do we know? Because national Democrats failed to truly step up when it came time to support Mandela Barnes’s US Senate campaign last fall.Groups on the right spent $62m on behalf of Republican Ron Johnson, compared with the left’s $41m for Barnes. The right’s $29m last-minute attacks included unabashedly racist ads against Barnes, who is Black. In the end, Johnson – a skeptic of Covid-19 who was tied to a 2020 Republican scheme to have the state’s Republican-dominated legislature choose Wisconsinites’ presidential electors – won narrowly, 50.5% to Barnes’s 49.5%.With the fate of access to safe abortions on the line, Protasiewicz’s campaign, as well as the Democratic and progressive ecosystem at large, will understandably focus on turning out pro-choice white women voters, mostly via ads. Her campaign’s messaging is heavily centered on protecting abortion rights and painting Kelly as an anti-abortion extremist. Yet there’s reason to be concerned that very little of Protasiewicz’s campaign funds, or any money raised from the outside, will be spent on targeting and mobilizing voters of color.According to the census, Wisconsin is about 7% Black, 3% Asian, 7.5% Latino, and 1% Native. Republicans in Wisconsin are well aware of the power of voters of color, and of the fact that they tend to vote Democratic. That’s why Wisconsin Republicans have been working hard to suppress voters of color and to create division between white voters and voters of color, especially in Milwaukee, which is home to close to 70% of the state’s Black population.In an example of saying the quiet part out loud, the Wisconsin elections commissioner Robert Spindell, a Republican, gloated after the 2022 election about depressing Black and brown turnout in Milwaukee. Spindell was tacitly admitting that when the multiracial Obama coalition turns out, Republicans lose.Democrats and progressives must increase investing in on-the-ground grassroots organizations with track records of turning out voters of color – especially Black voters – and fast. The work of organizations such as Souls to the Polls, Voces de la Frontera and the Workers Center for Racial Justice can make all the difference in this year’s most important election. Our democracy can’t afford to continue to overlook voters of color.
      Andy Wong is president of PowerPAC, a non-profit advocacy and political organization dedicated to building political power within communities of color and supporting progressive candidates of color More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump’s legal woes pick up speed as Republican 2024 race heats up

      by

      As Donald Trump runs again for the White House, he’s dogged by four criminal investigations that have gained momentum, including two focused on Trump’s zealous drive to overturn his 2020 election loss, raising the odds he will face charges in one or more inquiries in coming weeks or months, say former federal prosecutors.All four inquiries have accelerated in recent months with numerous subpoenas to close Trump associates and testimony by key witnesses before grand juries in Washington DC, Georgia and New York, that pose growing legal threats to Trump, plus several of his ex-lawyers and allies.Two investigations are homing in on Trump’s nonstop efforts to thwart his 2020 election loss with bogus fraud charges, while others are looking into Trump’s retention of hundreds of classified documents post his presidency, and Trump’s role in a $130,000 hush money payment in 2016 to porn star Stormy Daniels with whom he allegedly had an affair.An indictment of Trump in the Daniels hush money case could even come within days. Trump’s fears over the issue even prompted him to post on social media about being arrested this week in New York, triggering a flood of Republicans to issue statements of support despite Trump calling for protests against any such move.The four inquiries have been examining separately whether Trump violated several laws including obstruction of an official proceeding and defrauding the United States by his actions to overturn the 2020 election, and breaking other statutes.The multiple investigations of Trump, two of which are being led by justice department special counsel Jack Smith, are unparalleled for an ex president – especially as he seeks the White House again, say ex-prosecutors.“It seems quite possible, or even likely, that Trump will be defending himself in four different criminal cases as he is campaigning for president in 2024,” said Barbara McQuade, former US attorney for eastern Michigan. “Making court appearances in New York, Georgia, Florida and Washington DC while also maintaining a campaign schedule may prove to be a daunting task.”McQuade added: “Trump, no doubt, will use criminal charges as a fundraising tool and as a way to portray himself as the eternal victim. On some level, he may relish the spectacle of it all, but it seems likely that accountability is headed his way.”Other ex-prosecutors say Trump’s legal travails are unique for a presidential candidate.“The sheer number and diversity of criminal investigations of Trump’s conduct are totally unprecedented for a major candidate in modern times,” said Dan Richman, a Columbia University law professor and ex-prosecutor in New York southern district.The criminal inquiry by the Fulton county district attorney, Fani Willis, into Trump’s efforts to reverse his 2020 defeat in Georgia with his high-pressure call to the secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, on 2 January 2021 asking him to “find 11,780 votes”, and other calls, is expected to bring charges against him and some close allies in coming months, say ex-prosecutors.In late January, Willis said a special grand jury had completed a seven-month inquiry involving interviews with 75 witnesses in her investigation which reportedly had at least 17 targets, including Trump and his former personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani.A number of indictments have reportedly been recommended by the special grand jury, and Willis has said a decision is “imminent” about convening a regular grand jury that Georgia law requires before she brings any charges.Separately, Smith’s inquiry into Trump’s drive to thwart Joe Biden’s election seems to be in its late stages, in light of subpoenas this year to former vice-president Mike Pence and Trump’s former chief of staff Mark Meadows, both potentially key witnesses to Trump’s drive to block Biden from taking office. Ex-prosecutors say Meadows is a subject of the investigation.Those subpoenas “show that the January 6 investigation is serious and narrowing,” said Paul Pelletier, former acting chief of the justice department’s fraud section.Smith has secured grand jury testimony from other key figures including Pence’s former top aide Marc Short and his former chief counsel Greg Jacob, plus former White House counsel Pat Cipollone as part of his inquiry into whether Trump’s actions before and during 6 January 2021 violated an official proceeding and defrauded the government.On another legal front, Smith has also been leading a wide ranging inquiry into Trump’s retention of hundreds of classified documents at Mar a Lago after he left the White House, a potential violation of three laws – the Presidential Records Act, obstruction and the Espionage Act.Meanwhile, a grand jury convened by the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, to look into Trump’s alleged arranging hush money payments of $130,000 via his ex-lawyer Michael Cohen to Daniels in 2016, heard testimony from Cohen this week.Last week, Trump declined an invitation by the DA’s office to testify, a sign reportedly that he could soon be indicted.Trump has blasted all the investigations as politically motivated and said he’s done nothing illegal, decrying Smith’s appointment as “part of a never ending witch-hunt”.But ex-prosecutors see huge legal headaches ahead for Trump, and probable charges at least in the Georgia invsstigation.“With the Manhattan DA now presenting evidence to a grand jury, Trump now faces four credible criminal investigations – unprecedented for the most hardened criminals, never mind a former president who is seeking to enter the White House again,” Pelletier said.“Of all the investigations, Georgia appears likely to bring the most serious charges imminently against Trump. The Mar-a-Lago document investigation has picked up speed, but, frustratingly, appears to be on a more cautious and deliberate track.”Other former federal prosecutors see strong signs that in Georgia charges against Trump, and some of his top lawyers and allies are coming.“There is little doubt that a number of indictments are on the horizon in Georgia. My sense is that the Fulton county DA is putting the final touches on bringing Rico [racketeering] charges involving Trump and others” said former US attorney Michael Moore, of Georgia.“Trump will surely be the main player, and I expect to see some well-known names in upcoming indictments,” adding that Trump, as well as Meadows and Giuliani “are likely to each see more of the inside of a courtroom than any of them might like”.Trump has dubbed his call to Raffensperger as “perfect”.Moore noted: “There will be an unavoidable overlap of efforts by the Fulton DA and the special counsel. The efforts to overturn the 2020 election had both state and federal implications even while dealing with the same facts.“The ability of the special counsel to delve into conduct across many jurisdictions may prove especially useful when looking at the efforts to string together the fake electors schemes in multiple states,” referring to a scheme the justice department has focused on involving efforts by Giuliani and others to replace electors in key states Biden won with Trump electors.Other ex-prosecutors note significant overlap between the Georgia probe investigation and the special counsel’s, both of which threaten Trump, Giuliani, ex-Trump lawyer John Eastman and others.“While Trump’s calls to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and other Georgia state officials appear to be at the center of the Fulton county DA’s probe, that investigation likely extends to efforts by Trump’s legal team, including Rudy Giuliani, to convince Georgia legislators to overturn the election results,” said Richman.“Yet the legal team’s nationwide efforts by Giuliani, Eastman and others – encouraged by Trump to an extent that will need to be clarified – to present slates of phony electors to Congress and to otherwise disrupt the electoral certification also seems to be at the heart of one prong of Jack Smith’s federal investigation.”Not surprisingly, Trump’s legal expenses to fend off these investigations and other legal headaches involving personal and corporate matters have been hefty.According to federal records, Trump spent about $10m last year out of his political action committee to pay law firms representing him in the four criminal inquiries, plus cases involving the Trump Organization and lawsuits.Those costs will surely mount for Trump as the investigations ratchet up subpoenas of top former Trump allies to build their cases before grand juries, as Smith has been doing in the two inquiries he’s spearheading.“Prosecutors tend to conduct investigations in concentric circles, starting at the outer edges and then progressing ever inward with the target at the center,” McQuade said. “They want to arm themselves with as much information as possible when they question those who are closest to the target. Now that Smith is serving subpoenas on Meadows and Pence, it seems that he has entered the final circle of his investigation.”Little wonder that as Trump runs for the White House again, quite a few Republicans are feeling very edgy.“It does not bode well for the Republican party if Trump should be indicted and win the nomination,” said former Pennsylvania Republican congressman Charlie Dent. “The electoral outcome would be disastrous for the GOP. How much losing can we take?” More

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Federal prosecutors warn court of potential deluge of January 6 charges – report

      by

      Federal prosecutors in Washington have reportedly told court officials a thousand more people could be charged in relation to the deadly January 6 Capitol attack.Matthew Graves, the US attorney in Washington DC, sent a one-page letter to the chief judge of Washington DC federal court, apprising her of the potential deluge of defendants, Bloomberg News reported.The correspondence provides details on what the US attorney general, Merrick Garland, has described as “one of the largest, most complex and most resource-intensive investigations in our history”.Graves said in the letter that justice department officials estimated that another 700 to 1,200 defendants could face charges. That would nearly double the number of criminal cases relating to January 6, Bloomberg noted.More than a thousand people have faced charges for alleged involvement in the Capitol riot. Those who attacked Congress did so at the urging of Donald Trump, seeking to thwart certification of Joe Biden’s election win.Graves said knowing how many cases would unfold was “incredibly difficult” due to the “nature and the complexity of the investigation”. The prosecutor also said he did not know the exact proportion of misdemeanor and felony cases to come but thought there would be a larger proportion of felonies, Bloomberg said.“We expect the pace of bringing new cases will increase, in an orderly fashion, over the course of the next few months,” Graves wrote. He concluded by saying prosecutors’ estimates might shift as the justice department continues to “evaluate changing resources and circumstances”.Federal charges against participants in the Capitol riot have ranged from physical violence and property destruction to seditious conspiracy.The justice department has said 326 people have faced charges for “assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers or employees, including approximately 106 individuals who have been charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to an officer”.Some 140 police officers were assaulted. About 55 people have been charged with conspiracy, the justice department said.Of approximately 1,000 people arrested to date, 518 have pleaded guilty, with many facing jail or prison. Fifty-three people were found guilty at trial, justice department data showed.The DC federal judge, Beryl Howell, told Bloomberg the court “continues to manage its caseload and trial calendar efficiently, notwithstanding the delays occasioned by the pandemic”.“So far, the court has been able to manage the increased criminal caseload well,” said Howell, whose term concludes this week. “Should a ‘surge’ of filings occur at a later date, the court would assess what additional steps, if any, it should take.”Criminal investigations into Trump’s attempts to undermine the 2020 election continue. Trump also faces a hush money investigation in Manhattan, a criminal investigation relating to his alleged retention of classified documents, a New York civil suit over his financial dealings and a defamation trial arising from a rape allegation he denies. More

    • 188 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      The right is stealthily working to remove Americans’ access to abortion medication | Moira Donegan

      by

      This week a Republican-appointed federal judge weighed whether to grant an injunction that could remove mifepristone, the drug used in most American abortions, from the market nationwide. And the hearing almost happened in secret.US district court judge Matthew Kacsmaryk had initially planned to keep Wednesday’s hearing in the case – in which a group of rightwing anti-abortion groups are suing the FDA to reverse its 20-year-old approval of mifepristone – quiet. In a conference call with lawyers for the anti-choice groups and the Department of Justice, Kacsmaryk asked attorneys not to disclose the existence of the hearing (“This is not a gag order,” he said repeatedly), and said that the event would only be made public late on Tuesday to minimize popular awareness. “It may even be after business hours.” The judge’s courtroom in Amarillo, Texas, is hours away from any major city. It was only because of a press leak that the hearing was known to the public at all.It was just one of many of the alarming irregularities in the lawsuit, in which Kacsmaryk seems poised to grant the plaintiffs’ wish and issue an injunction that will radically reduce access to abortion nationwide.For one thing, the plaintiffs’ standing is exceptionally shaky: it’s not clear why the collection of abortion opponents – including one doctor, George Delgado, whose attempt to design an abortion-reversal clinical trial sent 25% of the test subjects to the hospital – have standing to sue the FDA. It’s especially unclear why they have standing to sue in Amarillo; the federal judicial district has become a popular venue for rightwing litigation in part because Kacsmaryk, an exceptionally conservative jurist willing to publish poorly reasoned, policy-driven opinions, is the only federal judge there.For another thing, the plaintiffs’ requests are exceptionally far-reaching. The anti-abortion groups want Kacsmaryk to declare the FDA’s approval of mifepristone illegal, even though the drug has been available in the US, and proven to be safe, for more than 20 years, and even though a judicial reversal of FDA approval for a medication would be highly unusual and only dubiously legal. At the hearing on Wednesday, lawyers for the plaintiffs acknowledged that there was no precedent for the court to order the suspension of a long-approved medication. If Kacsmaryk approves the injunction – and all indications are that he will – the drug could become inaccessible nationwide, even in Democratic-controlled states where abortion is legal.For another thing, the plaintiffs’ claims are so profoundly divorced from fact that it is difficult to believe that they are being made in good faith. The anti-abortion groups – including the doctor whose study sent women to the hospital – say that they are challenging the drug because they believe, falsely, that mifepristone is unsafe. Lawyers from the Alliance Defending Freedom, the rightwing legal outfit that is representing the plaintiffs and which is designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, pursued this idea on Wednesday in court. “How many more women have to die?” attorney Erik Baptist asked.In fact, no one dies from mifepristone. One of the most aggressively studied and tested drugs in the world since its creation in France in 1987, mifepristone, which blocks the pregnancy hormone progesterone and stops a pregnancy from progressing, has been found effective and overwhelmingly safe; it has a lower rate of serious complications than Tylenol. One study found that “significant adverse outcomes” occurred in less than 1% (0.65%) of mifepristone patients; the most common of these was continued pregnancy.What women do die from – died from in massive numbers before Roe, and will die from again, if medication abortion becomes unavailable – is illegal surgical abortions.Since Dobbs, the abortion rights movement has correctly been aiming to de-stigmatize illegal, self-managed abortions, encouraging women to stock up on the pills in advance so that they have them if they need them. The idea was that women shouldn’t be scared to use the pills: mifepristone, taken together with the contraction-inducing drug misoprostol, is so overwhelmingly safe and effective that women who could access the pills could confidently and secretly manage their own abortions, even in ban states. But if medication abortion becomes inaccessible, women may attempt more dangerous methods to self-induce. This is the real reason anti-abortion groups are targeting mifepristone: not because it endangers women, but because it keeps them safe.The injunction doesn’t necessarily have to end medication abortion in America as we know it. For one thing, there are already groups, both foreign and domestic, that are mailing abortion medication, including mifepristone, to all 50 states, regardless of local law. Women’s solidarity, inventiveness and determination will always outmatch punitive anti-abortion regimes. For another, an established misoprostol-only protocol for abortion has already been proven effective.Some abortion providers have already signaled their intention to switch to misoprostol-only; the drug is available over the counter in Mexico. But though they are effective, misoprostol-only abortions are also significantly more painful than those conducted with mifepristone. For the anti-abortion groups in court, that’s likely part of the point.
      Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      North Carolina court appears poised to overrule itself in gerrymandering case

      by

      The North Carolina supreme court heard oral arguments on Tuesday in a major gerrymandering case that could have significant implications for US voting rights.In a highly unusual move, the North Carolina court appears poised to overrule itself and get rid of congressional and state legislative districts it approved last year. The GOP-drawn map that was struck down could have produced a 11-3 advantage for Republicans in the congressional delegation. The one that replaced it was far less advantageous to the GOP and wound up producing a 7-7 split in the 2022 midterm elections. The court’s decision would likely allow Republicans to get a more advantageous map back in place.Demonstrators gathered outside the state supreme court in Raleigh on Tuesday as the justices heard oral arguments in the case, Harper v Hall. Much of the back-and-forth at the hearing focused on whether there were metrics the court could use to measure partisan gerrymandering. Phil Strach, a lawyer for the legislature, argued that because there were no clear metrics, it was not something the court could regulate.Anita Earls, a Democrat on the court, pushed Strach to explain whether that meant the legislature could essentially do whatever it wants when it comes to drawing districts. If the state legislature were to adopt a rule that explicitly said any congressional plan had to result in an 11-3 advantage for Republicans, she asked, could the state supreme court do anything to stop it? Strach suggested it could not.“Some things, your honor, are beyond the power of this court,” he said.Lali Madduri, a lawyer representing those challenging the map, accused lawmakers of playing a “cynical game, hoping that this newly constituted court will reverse course and abdicate its fundamental duty of judicial review”. Sam Hirsch, another lawyer for the challengers, said that an effort to impose new legislative districts could be unconstitutional since North Carolina’s constitution prohibits mid-decade redistricting for the state general assembly.Republicans won control of the North Carolina supreme court last fall and the new 5-2 GOP majority granted a request from the legislature to reconsider its redistricting ruling last month. The court had only granted similar requests twice before in the last 30 years. US courts do not typically grant requests to overrule their own rulings absent a major change in the case. The only thing that changed in the North Carolina case was the makeup of the court, Earls wrote in a searing dissenting opinion earlier this year.“It took this court just one month to send a smoke signal to the public that our decisions are fleeting, and our precedent is only as enduring as the terms of the justices who sit on the bench,” she wrote. “I write to make clear that the emperor has no clothes.”That rehearing decision could have reverberations at the US supreme court, which is separately considering the case and could issue a decision that could upend US election law.In December, lawyers for the legislature asked the justices to overrule the state court and endorse a fringe legal theory that would prohibit state courts from policing the drawing of congressional districts and other federal election rules. Such a ruling from the US supreme court would upend US election law, removing state courts from policing federal elections. Earlier this month, the US supreme court asked for briefing on how the decision to rehear the case in North Carolina affected its own authority to issue a ruling.In addition to the redistricting case, the North Carolina supreme court is also set this week to rehear a previous decision striking down the state’s voter ID law. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Republicans push wave of bills that would bring homicide charges for abortion

      by

      Republicans push wave of bills that would bring homicide charges for abortionProliferation of bills in Texas, Kentucky and elsewhere ‘exposes fundamental lie of anti-abortion movement’, experts sayFor decades, the mainstream anti-abortion movement promised that it did not believe women who have abortions should be criminally charged. But now, Republican lawmakers in several US states have introduced legislation proposing homicide and other criminal charges for those seeking abortion care.‘Sanctuary cities for the unborn’: how a US pastor is pushing for a national abortion banRead moreThe bills have been introduced in states such as Texas, Kentucky, South Carolina, Oklahoma and Arkansas. Some explicitly target medication abortion and self-managed abortion; some look to remove provisions in the law which previously protected pregnant people from criminalization; and others look to establish the fetus as a person from the point of conception.It is highly unlikely that all of these bills will pass. But their proliferation marks a distinct departure from the language of existing bans and abortion restrictions, which typically exempt people seeking abortion care from criminalization.“This exposes a fundamental lie of the anti-abortion movement, that they oppose the criminalization of the pregnant person,” said Dana Sussman, the acting executive director of Pregnancy Justice. “They are no longer hiding behind that rhetoric.”Some members of the anti-abortion movement have made it clear the bills do not align with their views, continuing to insist that abortion providers, rather than pregnant people themselves, should be targeted by criminal abortion laws.“[We] oppose penalties for mothers, who are a second victim of a predatory abortion industry,” said Kristi Hamrick, the chief media and policy strategist for Students for Life of America. “We want to see a billion-dollar industry set up to profit by preying on women and the preborn held accountable. The pro-life movement as a whole has been very clear on this.”A spokesperson for Susan B Anthony Pro-Life America echoed the same sentiment: that the organization unequivocally rejects prosecution of the pregnant person.The bills are likely to be controversial as they proceed, even within conservative circles: Republicans have frequently hit walls when trying to pass anti-abortion legislation, with lawmakers at odds over exactly how far bans should go.The reproductive justice organization If/When/How points out these bills are an indication of the different wings and splinter groups in the anti-abortion movement, increasingly evident since the Dobbs decision last year that overturned Roe v Wade.“What we’re seeing, post-Dobbs, is a splintering in tactics that abortion opponents are using, and emboldening on the part of more hardline” factions within the movement, said Farah Diaz-Tello, senior counsel and legal director at If/When/How.“That has always been an undercurrent” in the movement, Diaz-Tello added. “As we see other abortion opponents declaring their opposition to criminalization of people who end their pregnancies, this is the opportunity for them to really step up and put those principles into action.”The bills being introduced in Arkansas, Texas, Kentucky and South Carolina look to establish that life begins at conception. Each of these bills explicitly references homicide charges for abortion. Homicide is punishable by the death penalty in all of those states.Bills in Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas also explicitly target medication abortion, which so far has fallen into a legal grey zone in much of the country.A bill in Alabama has also been announced, although not yet been introduced, by Republican representative Ernest Yarbrough, that would establish fetal personhood from conception and repeal a section of Alabama’s abortion ban that expressly prevents homicide charges for abortion. The state’s current law makes abortion a class A felony, on the same level as homicide, but exempts women seeking abortions from being held criminally or civilly liable.Laws that establish fetal personhood also bring the risk of opening pregnant people up to battery and assault charges for endangering a fetus. Such charges have already been documented in hundreds of cases, using criminal laws championed in recent decades by the anti-abortion movement that recognize fetuses as potential victims.“It never starts or stops with abortion,” said Sussman of the far-reaching effects of fetal personhood laws.“That means that not getting prenatal care, not taking pre-natal vitamins, working a job that is physically demanding – all of those things could impose some risk to the fetus – and that could be a child neglect or child abuse case.”Such laws have been used to target pregnant people who have taken prescribed medication, taken illegal drugs or drunk alcohol while pregnant, even when there has been no adverse outcome on the fetus.Some of the bills, such as the one in Arkansas, allow a partner to file an unlawful death lawsuit against a pregnant person who has had an abortion.“The ways in which pregnant people could become a mere vessel for an entity that has separate and unique rights is becoming closer and closer to reality. And there are ways in which this could be used that we haven’t even contemplated yet,” said Sussman.TopicsUS newsAbortionLaw (US)Reproductive rightsRoe v WadeUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Alex Murdaugh’s brother gives first interview since trial: ‘He knows more’

      by

      Alex Murdaugh’s brother gives first interview since trial: ‘He knows more’In New York Times interview, Randy Murdaugh says he remains unsure if his brother murdered son and wife in South CarolinaAlex Murdaugh, the disgraced South Carolina lawyer found guilty of murdering his wife and son, has long been a thief and liar – but his being a convicted killer is still a shock, his brother has said in the first interview a member of the family has given since the trial.In an interview with the New York Times, Randy Murdaugh said he remained unsure if Alex murdered his son and wife in June 2021. Randy Murdaugh added that while he respects the jury’s verdict, he has known Alex as a protective father and husband.Murder and mystery in the south: how the Murdaugh trial gripped AmericaRead more“He knows more than what he’s saying,” said Randy Murdaugh, referring to Alex’s lying about the murder. “He’s not telling the truth, in my opinion, about everything there.”Randy, Alex’s older brother, said in the interview that the pair were not close, despite going to the same college and law school, and working at the family’s law firm together.“It’s not like there was some problem with our relationship, necessarily,” Randy Murdaugh said. “We just really weren’t alike, so we didn’t do stuff together.”Weeks after the murder, Randy Murdaugh said that much of the family rallied around Alex, who suggested the killing of his 22-year-old son Paul was due to Paul’s involvement in a fatal 2019 boating accident. Maggie Murdaugh, Alex’s wife, was shot dead alongside Paul.Months after the murders, Randy confronted Alex about financial records that showed Alex had embezzled millions from the family business. In an emotional conversation, Randy recalled, Alex admitted to stealing, and to a severe addiction to painkillers.Alex promised never to lie to Randy again, Randy said, but soon broke that pledge. A day later, Alex told police and Randy that he had been shot on the side of the road by an unknown person.Police later said Alex Murdaugh had arranged to have someone else shoot him, in the hopes that his surviving son Buster could collect his life insurance money.Randy soon stopped speaking with Alex, who has been charged with stealing more than $8m from the family firm. The pair have not spoken in almost a year.But in July last year, when Alex was arrested over the murder of his wife and son, Randy re-examined aspects of what he knew about his younger brother.Randy Murdaugh told the newspaper that the family has dealt with similar uncertainty, given the gruesome nature of the crime and the previous understanding they had of Alex.“The not knowing,” Randy Murdaugh said, “is the worst thing there is.”Randy Murdaugh’s interview stands in sharp contrast from statements given by Alex’s defense lawyers, who have said that the Murdaugh family fully believes he did not murder anyone. His lawyers also said the family supports him.On Friday, Alex Murdaugh was given two sentences of life imprisonment after being found guilty of the murders of Paul and Maggie Murdaugh. The sentences capped a six-week, televised trial in which Alex maintained his innocence, though that was undermined by cellphone video captured by his son that placed him at the scene of the murders shortly before they occurred.Randy said the Murdaugh family is focused on supporting Buster, who has lost his immediate family. Randy said his life has attracted international attention given his brother’s crimes.Randy told the New York Times he hoped the trial would give him some closure and an answer about the circumstances around the death of his nephew and sister-in-law, but he said he has not stopped thinking about it.“I hoped that after the trial, because there’s nothing more that can be presented, that I’d stop thinking about this,” Randy Murdaugh said. “But so far, that has not been the case.”TopicsAlex MurdaughUS politicsSouth CarolinaUS crimeLaw (US)newsReuse this content 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