Roe v Wade

Subterms

    More stories

    • 188 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats move to repeal 1873 law they say could pave way for national abortion ban

      by

      Democrats introduced legislation on Thursday to repeal a 19th-century anti-obscenity law that bans mailing abortion-related materials, amid growing worries that anti-abortion activists will use the law to implement a federal abortion ban.The bill to repeal the Comstock Act was introduced by the Minnesota Democratic senator Tina Smith, whose office provided a draft copy of the legislation to the Guardian. The Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren and Nevada senator Catherine Cortez Masto also back the bill, according to the Washington Post, which first reported the news of Smith’s plans. Companion legislation was also set to be introduced in the House.“We have to see that these anti-choice extremists are intending to misapply the Comstock Act,” Smith said in an interview. “And so our job is to draw attention to that, and to do everything that we can to stop them.”Passed in 1873, the Comstock Act is named after the anti-vice crusader Anthony Comstock and, in its original iteration, broadly banned people from using the mail to send anything “obscene, lewd or lascivious”, including “any article or thing designed or intended for the prevention of conception or procuring an abortion”. In the 151 years since its enactment, legal rulings and congressional action narrowed the scope of the Comstock Act. For years, legal experts regarded it as a dead letter, especially when Roe v Wade established the constitutional right to an abortion.But after the US supreme court overturned Roe in 2022, some anti-abortion activists started arguing that the Comstock Act’s prohibition against mailing abortion-related materials remained good law. Project 2025, a playbook written by the influential thinktank the Heritage Foundation, recommends that a future conservative presidential administration use the Comstock Act to block the mailing of abortion pills. Other activists have gone even further, arguing that the Comstock Act can outlaw the mailing of all abortion-related materials.Because abortion clinics rely on the mail for the drugs and tools they need to do their work, such an interpretation of the Comstock Act would be a de facto ban on all abortion.The Biden administration has issued guidance arguing that someone only violates the Comstock Act if the sender intends for abortion-related materials “to be used unlawfully”. However, although Joe Biden has focused his re-election campaign on reproductive rights, he has steered clear of addressing the potential return of the Comstock Act.Smith said that it “seems impossible” that her repeal bill will garner the 60 votes necessary to advance legislation in the Senate. Republicans recently stymied Democratic efforts to establish federal rights to contraception and in vitro fertilization.But Smith views her bill as a chance to raise awareness of the nationwide consequences of a Comstock Act revival, particularly among voters living in states where abortion rights are currently protected.“You talk to somebody in Minnesota or Nevada or Pennsylvania, places where people feel secure that they have control over their own decisions and their own potential to decide for themselves about abortion – and then come to find out that Donald Trump has a plan to take away that control that you have, even without a vote or an act of Congress,” Smith said. “It makes it much more real, what the difference is and what the contrast is, what the choices are for you even in those states where state law protects you. That could all change.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionIn a New York Times April op-ed where she first aired her plans to repeal the Comstock Act, Smith suggested that she planned to introduce the legislation once the supreme court ruled on a case involving access to mifepristone, one of the two drugs typically used in US medication abortions and a top target of anti-abortion activists. In a unanimous opinion earlier this month, the supreme court ruled on technical grounds to let access to mifepristone remain unchanged for now. Although rightwing justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito brought up the Comstock Act during oral arguments in the case, neither the majority opinion nor a concurrence by Thomas ultimately mentioned the anti-obscenity law.“The court, in its decision, left the door wide open for future challenges based on Comstock,” Smith said, adding: “There was nothing in the court’s decision that gave me any sense of security.” More

    • 150 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump’s VP search reportedly down to four men – as it happened

      by

      Donald Trump appears to have narrowed his search for a vice-presidential candidate down to four men: North Dakota governor Doug Burgum; and Senators Marco Rubio of Florida, Tim Scott of South Carolina and JD Vance of Ohio, NBC News is reporting.The former president and presumptive Republican nominee for this year’s election has sent out “vetting materials” to the quartet, according to sources cited by the outlet.Another source told NBC that Trump was focusing on a three-way contest between Burgum, Rubio and Vance, with Scott out of the picture.The report also cautions: “Trump is working from a fluid shortlist that at times includes more than a half-dozen names. Additions, subtractions and the emergence of dark-horse candidates remain possible”.Burgum has been seen in Trump’s company increasingly frequently in recent weeks, while all three of the others have become prominent and enthusiastic cheerleaders for Trump during TV appearances following his conviction on 34 felony charges in New York last week.Some of those previously considered to be high on his list of VP “possibles” have fallen away, the NBC report suggests, most notably South Dakota governor Kristi Noem, whose star faded after the Guardian exposed in April how she shot and killed a rambunctious puppy in cold blood.Congress members Elise Stefanik of New York and Byron Donalds of Florida, have also been mentioned, along with Ben Carson, who served as Trump’s housing secretary.NBC notes Trump did not name former vice-president Mike Pence as his running mate until days before the 2016 Republican party convention, and said his decision this year is unlikely to be made public ahead of the July convention in Cleveland, Ohio.Here’s a wrap-up of the day’s key events:
      Donald Trump appears to have narrowed his search for a vice-presidential candidate down to four men: North Dakota governor Doug Burgum; and Senators Marco Rubio of Florida, Tim Scott of South Carolina and JD Vance of Ohio, NBC News reported. The former president and presumptive Republican nominee for this year’s election has sent out “vetting materials” to the quartet, according to sources cited by the outlet. Another source told NBC that Trump was focusing on a three-way contest between Burgum, Rubio and Vance, with Scott out of the picture.
      Michigan’s Democratic representative Rashida Tlaib has condemned Joe Biden’s latest executive order that limits asylum seekers from crossing the US-Mexico border. In a post on X, Tlaib tweeted: “This executive order is outrageous. Seeking asylum is a human right. President Biden promised to end cruel Trump-era immigration policies, not resume them. We need to stop the dehumanization of migrants who are escaping violence and seeking a better life for their families.”
      The White House and the Biden campaign are not pleased with the Wall Street Journal’s story raising questions about whether he is fit to serve. On X, his re-election campaign noted that Kevin McCarthy, who in his former job as speaker of the House repeatedly met with the president, has previously said he was able to follow conversations and participate in meetings just fine.
      Alejandro Mayorkas, homeland security secretary, spoke with MSNBC about the agreement between US and Mexico for the Mexican authorities to enforce anti-migration measures before people even reach the border. “We have built a very strong and productive partnership with Mexico, with President Lopez Obrador. We expect that strong and productive partnership to continue under the presidency of Claudia Sheinbaum,” Mayorkas said today.
      Joe Biden has congratulated the Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, and his National Democratic Alliance for their election victory to form a new government for a third straight term. He posted on X: “The friendship between our nations is only growing as we unlock a shared future of unlimited potential.”
      The White House office of management and budget just announced that Joe Biden supports the Right to Contraception Act, which the Democratic-led Senate is expected to vote on later today. “The Administration strongly supports Senate passage of S 4381, the Right to Contraception Act, which would protect the fundamental right to access contraception and help ensure that women can make decisions about their health, lives and families,” the office wrote.
      That’s it as we wrap up the blog for today. Thank you for following along.The Congressional Black Caucus criticized Marjorie Taylor Greene’s rant about George Floyd in which she complained that Democrats are “worshipping” the “convicted felon.”In a video posted on X, Greene can be seen speaking to a reporter, saying, “We have Jamie Raskin in there accusing us of worshiping Trump, worshiping a ‘convicted felon’.” The reporter interjected, saying that Trump was indeed convicted.In response, Greene said: “Well yeah, so was George Floyd. And everybody, and you all too, the media worships George Floyd. Democrats worship George Floyd. There were riots, burning down the fucking country over George Floyd and Raskin is in there, saying we worship him [Trump].Following Greene’s comments, the Congressional Black Caucus condemned the Republican representative. “This is unhinged even for @RepMTG,” they wrote in an X post.“Her actions are unacceptable even by the lowest of Republican standards. George Floyd did not deserve to die, and a member of Congress should have the decency to acknowledge his humanity,” the Congressional Black Caucus continued.For the full story, click here:Michigan’s Democratic representative Rashida Tlaib has condemned Joe Biden’s latest executive order that limits asylum seekers from crossing the US-Mexico border.In a post on X, Tlaib tweeted:
      “This executive order is outrageous. Seeking asylum is a human right. President Biden promised to end cruel Trump-era immigration policies, not resume them. We need to stop the dehumanization of migrants who are escaping violence and seeking a better life for their families.”
      Byron Donalds recently came under fire for suggesting that Black families were stronger during the Jim Crow era, when racial segregation was legalized through much of the US, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported.During a Trump campaign event in Philadelphia titled “Congress, Cognac and Cigars”, Donalds claimed that Black families were “more together” during Jim Crow and have been on the decline as Black people started to vote increasingly for the Democratic Party.“You see, during Jim Crow, the Black family was together. During Jim Crow, more Black people were not just conservative – Black people have always been conservative-minded – but more Black people voted conservatively,” Donalds said.“And then HEW, Lyndon Johnson – you go down that road, and now we are where we are,” Donalds added, referring to former president Lyndon B Johnson.The event was co-hosted with congressman Wesley Hunt of Texas, another Republican who is Black.Despite the latest report from NBC News, Trump’s search for a VP may be wider than reported. In addition to Rubio, Scott, Vance, and Burgum, other politicians have repeatedly come up as possible running mates for Trump in the 2024 presidential election.Congressman Byron Donalds of Florida is still widely considered a possible choice for vice-presidential candidate.The first-term congressman has been a rising star within Republican the party and recently attended a campaign event for Trump in Philadelphia.Talking of the former president, my colleague Cameron Joseph’s latest Trump on Trial newsletter takes a look at how voters feel about his conviction last week on 34 felony charges, and how it might affect their decision for November’s election.It’s moderately good news for Joe Biden because of a slight uptick in support for the president in head-to-head surveys. In fact, more than half of voters approve of the guilty verdict, a trio of polls revealed, although there were mixed reactions in the crucial swing states of Wisconsin and Georgia, Guardian reporting found.It’s Cameron’s final newsletter before he leaves the Guardian to take up a new role elsewhere. You can read it here, and don’t forget to subscribe if you haven’t already:Donald Trump appears to have narrowed his search for a vice-presidential candidate down to four men: North Dakota governor Doug Burgum; and Senators Marco Rubio of Florida, Tim Scott of South Carolina and JD Vance of Ohio, NBC News is reporting.The former president and presumptive Republican nominee for this year’s election has sent out “vetting materials” to the quartet, according to sources cited by the outlet.Another source told NBC that Trump was focusing on a three-way contest between Burgum, Rubio and Vance, with Scott out of the picture.The report also cautions: “Trump is working from a fluid shortlist that at times includes more than a half-dozen names. Additions, subtractions and the emergence of dark-horse candidates remain possible”.Burgum has been seen in Trump’s company increasingly frequently in recent weeks, while all three of the others have become prominent and enthusiastic cheerleaders for Trump during TV appearances following his conviction on 34 felony charges in New York last week.Some of those previously considered to be high on his list of VP “possibles” have fallen away, the NBC report suggests, most notably South Dakota governor Kristi Noem, whose star faded after the Guardian exposed in April how she shot and killed a rambunctious puppy in cold blood.Congress members Elise Stefanik of New York and Byron Donalds of Florida, have also been mentioned, along with Ben Carson, who served as Trump’s housing secretary.NBC notes Trump did not name former vice-president Mike Pence as his running mate until days before the 2016 Republican party convention, and said his decision this year is unlikely to be made public ahead of the July convention in Cleveland, Ohio.Presidential candidate Robert F Kennedy Jr could help Biden gain a bump in key swing states in the 2024 presidential election, according to a new survey, the Hill reported.With Kennedy as an option, Biden gains a slight advantage in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, two major swing states ahead of November’s election.Here’s more information from the Hill:
      Polling from Mainstreet Research, PolCom Lab and Florida Atlantic University showed Trump with a slight lead over Biden in a head-to-head race in both Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. But when Kennedy is added to the mix, Biden takes the lead in the states, according to the poll.
      Kennedy, an independent candidate, is not currently on the ballot in either state, which along with Michigan are seen as crucial to Biden’s hopes for reelection….
      Read the full article here.Ahead of today’s Senate vote to protect access to contraception, reproductive right activists have put up a 20ft- inflatable of an IUD to raise awareness.The gigantic contraception installation is currently on display at Union Station in Washington DC.CNN’s Haley Talbot posted a picture of the installation to X.The installation has caused a stir on social media.“Ahhhh that’s why it was ‘currently unavailable’ on Amazon,” wrote one user on X.Another simply commented: “Wow.”Today’s Senate vote is due at 3.45pm.Senate Democrats are teeing up a vote on legislation to protect access to contraception, which the majority leader, Chuck Schumer, argues is under threat from Republican lawmakers and rightwing supreme court justices. The White House said Joe Biden supports the bill, while Republican senator Katie Britt slammed it as part of a “summer of scare tactics” ahead of the November election. Meanwhile, top Democratic lawmakers are decrying a Wall Street Journal story that reported Biden showed signs of “slipping” in important meetings – a sensitive allegation for the 81-year-old president. His campaign attacked the report as well, and White House communications director Ben LaBolt wondered if it was published with nefarious intent.Here’s what else has happened today so far:
      Alejandro Mayorkas, the homeland security secretary, said Biden’s immigration executive order signed yesterday was intended to discourage migrants from attempting to cross the border illegally.
      Advocates for migrants warned the new restrictions on asylum seekers could put lives at risk.
      Biden congratulated the Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, on his election to a third term.
      Joe Biden yesterday signed an executive order that will temporarily close the southern US border to new asylum seekers when crossings reach a certain level. As the Guardian’s Maanvi Singh reports, advocates for migrants warn that it will put lives at risk:Joe Biden on Tuesday signed an aggressive new immigration order suspending asylum rights, signalling that “securing the border” was a central tenet of his re-election bid.At the southern US border, the policy is set to cause chaos and hardship for those seeking the protection of the United States.The executive order revealed on Tuesday revokes – at least temporarily – the country’s long-standing promise that anyone who sets foot on US soil can ask for refuge.Starting at 12.01am Wednesday, the government will be able to return people apprehended at the border to Mexico or their home countries within hours or days if a daily number of crossings is exceeded, giving them little chance to apply for asylum.On Tuesday afternoon, lawyers who work with people attempting to cross the border were still scrambling to understand how exactly the order would work – as detailed regulations had yet to be made public. But what was sure, they said, was that it would create panic and chaos at the border in the short term. The rush of people fleeing violence and chaos in their home countries is unlikely to stop overnight, they cautioned.“It can’t be counted on to reduce, or to stop, people from coming,” said Monika Y Langarica, a senior attorney with the Center for Immigration Law and Policy (CILP) based at the border in San Diego. “But it certainly will create confusion. It will create disorder, and it will put people’s lives in danger.”The White House and the Biden campaign is also not pleased with the Wall Street Journal’s story raising questions about whether he is fit to serve.On X, his re-election campaign noted that Kevin McCarthy, who in his former job as speaker of the House repeatedly met with the president, has previously said he was able to follow conversations and participate in meetings just fine:White House communications director Ben LaBolt wondered if there was nefarious intent behind the article’s publication: More

    • 175 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Louisiana’s move to criminalize abortion pills is cruel and medically senseless | Moira Donegan

      by

      This week, Louisiana moved to expand the criminalization of abortion further than any state has since before Roe v Wade was decided. On Thursday, the state legislature passed a bill that would reclassify mifepristone and misoprostol – the two drugs used in a majority of American abortions – as dangerous controlled substances.Under both state and federal classifications, the category of controlled substances includes those medications known to cause mind-altering effects and create the potential for addictions, such as sedatives and opioids; abortion medications carry none of this potential for physical dependence, habit-forming or abuse. The move from Louisiana lawmakers runs counter to both established medical opinion and federal law. Jeff Landry, the anti-choice Republican governor, is expected to sign the bill. When he does, possession of mifepristone or misoprostol in Louisiana will come to carry large fines and up to 10 years in prison.Louisiana already has a total abortion ban, with no rape or incest exceptions. But the Louisiana lawmakers are pursuing this new additional criminalization measure because while abortion bans are very good at generating suffering for women, they are not very good at actually preventing abortions. Data from the Guttmacher Institute suggests that the United States saw an 11% increase in abortions between 2020 and 2023 – a possible indication that pregnant people are still managing to obtain abortions in spite of post-Dobbs bans. As was the case in the pre-Roe era, women have continued to seek out ways to end their pregnancies, even in defiance of abortion ban laws.In the pre-Roe era, illegal abortions were often unsafe, and abortion bans caused a public health crisis: many hospitals had to open septic abortion wards, where women who had had incompetent or careless illegal abortions were treated for frequently life-threatening conditions. But the post-Dobbs reality is that advances in communications technology and medicine mean that illegal abortions need no longer be unsafe ones. Now, women living in states with abortion bans can access safe, effective abortion care in the comfort of their own homes, and often law enforcement and anti-choice zealots are none the wiser. Women can perform their own abortions, safely and effectively, without regard to the law’s opinion on whether they should be free to. They can do this because they can access the pills.The criminalization measure, then, is part of an expanding horizon of invasive, sadistic and burdensome state interventions meant to do the impossible: to stop women from trying to control their own lives. The Louisiana bill nominally will not apply to pregnant women – they’re exempted from criminal punishments for possession of the medications. But it will take square aims at the vital, heroic efforts of feminists, medical practitioners and mutual aid networks that have been distributing the pills in Louisiana: the people who have adhered to the principles of bodily autonomy and women’s self-determination even amid a hostile climate. These people’s courage and integrity is the greatest threat to the anti-choice regime, and so it is these people whom Louisiana’s new medical criminalization law will be used against first.But pro-abortion rights and women’s rights activists are not the only ones who will be hurt by the new law. For one thing, the criminalization of possession is likely to scare many Louisiana abortion seekers out of ordering the pills online, even if the bill itself technically excludes them from prosecution. These abortion seekers, dissuaded and threatened out of seeking the most reliable and safe method of self-managed abortion, may then turn to less safe options.But the new drug classification also has implications for a wide array of healthcare treatments. Mifepristone and misoprostol are not only used in elective abortions. They are also the standard of care for spontaneous miscarriages – the management of which has already become legally fraught for doctors in Louisiana, causing women to suffer needlessly and endanger their health. Misoprostol is used in labor, too, and in the treatment of some ulcers. The drugs’ needless, cruel and medically senseless reclassification as “controlled” substances will make these medical practices more difficult in a state that already has one of the worst rates of maternal mortality in the country. That’s part of why more than 200 Louisiana physicians signed a letter opposing the bill.The Republican legislators who have pushed the new criminalization do not pretend to actually believe that abortion drugs are habit-forming. Thomas Pressly, the state senator who introduced the bill, frankly said that his aim was to “control the rampant illegal distribution of abortion-inducing drugs”.But there is something to the notion that abortion access might be “habit-forming”. In the Roe era, after all, women began to conceive of themselves as full persons, able to exercise control over their own destinies – as adults, that is, with all the privileges and entitlements of citizenship. They formed a habit of independence, a habit of imagining themselves as people entitled to freedom, equality, self-determination and respect. It is these habits that the Republican party is trying to break them of.
      Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist More

    • 150 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Colorado voters to decide on abortion rights after measure qualifies for ballot

      by

      Voters in Colorado will have a say on abortion rights this fall after supporters collected enough valid signatures to put a measure on the ballot, part of a national push to pose abortion rights questions to voters since the US supreme court removed the nationwide right to abortion.The Colorado measure officially made the ballot on Friday and would enshrine abortion rights into the constitution in a state which already allows abortion at all stages of pregnancy despite the supreme court’s overturning of Roe v Wade.Since that 2022 decision, most Republican-controlled states have new abortion restrictions in effect, including 14 that ban it at every stage of pregnancy. Most Democratic-led states have laws or executive orders to protect access.The announcement on Friday about Colorado’s measure making the November ballot came from the state’s top election official. It would also include requirements that Medicaid and private health insurers cover abortions.Supporters had said they gathered more than 225,000 signatures to put the issue on the ballot, nearly double the requirement of more than 124,000 signatures.Amending the state constitution requires the support of 55% of voters.Those backing a dueling measure – a law to ban abortion – did not turn in signatures, and that measure will not go before voters.The news in Colorado came a day after South Dakota announced voters would decide on abortion rights there this fall as well.The Associated Press contributed reporting More

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Arizona Democrat says enshrining abortion rights in constitution best remedy to 1864 ban

      by

      Repealing the 1864 near-total abortion ban that Arizona’s state supreme court recently ruled was enforceable would have little effect because “the damage is done”, the Democratic congressman Ruben Gallego said on Sunday.“Any initiative they pass right now wouldn’t even take effect for quite a while,” the US House member and Senate hopeful told NBC News on Sunday, referring to the 90-day delay such a maneuver would undergo before taking effect. He also said a repeal would be vulnerable to being neutralized by future iterations of the state legislature, remarking: “It could just get overturned later by another state house or state senate.”Gallego instead maintained that codifying abortion rights in Arizona’s constitution through a public referendum was the best countermeasure available for the state supreme court decision clearing the way for authorities to enforce a ban with exceptions for medical emergencies – but not for rape or incest.“The only protection we really, really have is to codify this and put this on the ballot and enshrine” the abortion rights once granted federally by the US supreme court’s landmark Roe v Wade decision in 1973, Gallego added. “Protect abortion rights.”His comments came five days after the rightwing court’s ruling allowing enforcement of a ban that pre-dates Arizona’s statehood by nearly five decades.The law has not immediately taken effect but is bound to supersede a separate 15-week abortion ban that the state passed separately.An Arizona state lawmaker quickly moved to repeal the 1864 ban but has so far been blocked from advancing his proposal by fellow Republicans.The ruling in question was made possible thanks to the removal of abortion rights at the federal level in 2022 by a US supreme court counting on three conservative justices appointed during Donald Trump’s presidency.The elimination of federal abortion rights have driven Democratic victories in elections ever since. And confronted with the reality that most in the US support at least some level of abortion access, Republicans who cheered the reversal of Roe v Wade scrambled to distance themselves from the Arizona supreme court’s 9 April ruling.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThat includes Kari Lake, the Republican who in the fall plans to run for the Arizona US Senate seat held at the moment by the independent Kyrsten Sinema.“This total ban on abortion the Arizona supreme court just ruled on is out of line with where the people of this state are,” Lake – who is endorsed by Trump – said in a video on Thursday. “This is such a personal and private issue.”Lake had previously expressed her approval of Arizona’s 1864 abortion ban after the US supreme court eliminated Roe v Wade – and before she lost the state’s 2022 gubernatorial election to her Democratic rival, Katie Hobbs.And Gallego has seized on that change of position, telling MSNBC recently: “Arizonans aren’t dumb. They know that Kari Lake is lying and is willing to say anything she can to win and to hold power, and they will not trust her with this.”Gallego’s campaign has helped a coalition of reproductive rights groups collect signatures aiming to put a referendum on Arizona’s ballot for the November elections proposing to enshrine abortion rights in the state’s constitution.The proposed constitutional amendment would establish a fundamental right to abortions up to about the 24th week of pregnancy, with exceptions to protect lives and physical or mental health of pregnant people.Ballot initiative campaign organizers say they have about 120,000 more signatures than needed to get the issue before voters in November. But that cushion is necessary because those opposed to the campaign have the right to scrutinize and challenge the validity of those signatures.An Iraq war veteran who served with the US marines, Gallego’s first term in the House began in 2015 and he has been representing his current district since early 2023.Both he and Lake are heavily favored to advance out of their respective parties’ Senate primaries in July to run in November for a seat being left vacant by Sinema, who chose to not seek re-election. More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump boasts ‘We broke Roe v Wade’ as abortion dogs GOP election hopes

      by

      Facing the press alongside the House speaker, fellow Republican Mike Johnson, Donald Trump bragged: “We broke Roe v Wade.”The former president made the stark admission about his dominant role in attacks on abortion rights at the end of a week in which the rightwing Arizona state supreme court ruled that an 1864 law imposing a near-total ban could go back into effect.Abortion rights were removed at the federal level in 2022 when a US supreme court to which Trump appointed three justices overturned Roe, which had stood since 1973. The issue has fueled Democratic wins at the ballot box ever since. This week, the Arizona ruling sent Republicans scrambling to minimise damage.Trump repeated his contention that the issue should rest with the states and there is no need for a national ban, a demand of the US’s political right. But he could not resist a boast on which his opponents are sure to seize.“We broke Roe v Wade,” Trump said. “Nobody thought was possible. We gave it back to the states and the states are working very brilliantly, in some cases conservative, in some cases not conservative, but they’re working. And it’s working the way it’s supposed to.“Every … real legal scholar wanted to have it go back to the states,” Trump claimed without offering evidence. “Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative. And we were able to do that … and now the states are working their way through it.“And you’re gonna, you’re having some very, very beautiful harmony, to be honest with you. You have, well, you have some cases like Arizona that went back to like 1864 or something like that. And a judge made a ruling, but that’s going to be changed by government. They’re going to be changing that. I disagree with that.”At the time of Trump’s remarks, the vice-president, Kamala Harris, was speaking in Arizona, hammering home Democratic attacks on Republican threats to reproductive rights. Her key message: Trump is to blame.“And just minutes ago, standing beside Speaker Johnson, Donald Trump just said the collection of state bans is, quote: ‘working the way it is supposed to’,” Harris said. “And as much harm as he has already caused, a second Trump term would be even worse.”Trump and Johnson appeared together at a time of intense legal jeopardy for the former president and great political danger for the House speaker that meant their intended message – a supposed need to focus on the canard of “election integrity” – seemed guaranteed to be drowned out.In New York on Monday, Trump will face trial on 34 of 88 pending criminal charges. The first ever criminal trial involving a former president will concern hush-money payments to an adult film star who claimed an affair.In Washington, Johnson must manage Congress with a tiny majority under pressure from an unruly Republican House caucus dominated by the pro-Trump right. The Georgia extremist Marjorie Taylor Greene has filed a motion to remove him.Opening the press conference at his Mar-a-Lago home, Trump exhibited his signature rhetoric on immigration, increasingly dehumanizing and vicious.View image in fullscreenJohnson said Republicans would seek to introduce legislation to “require proof of citizenship to vote”, claiming that if “hundreds of thousands” of migrants cast votes, it could affect the result of the elections.In reality, non-citizens voting is not even close to a problem.Some cities allow non-citizens to vote in municipal and non-federal polls. But non-citizen voting in federal elections is already illegal under a 1996 law. Offenders can be fined and jailed for up to a year. Deportation is possible.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe Bipartisan Policy Center points to research by groups on the right and left which says non-citizen voting is exceptionally rare, saying: “Any instance of illegally cast ballots by non-citizens has been investigated by the appropriate authorities, and there is no evidence that these votes – or any other instances of voter fraud – have been significant enough to impact any election’s outcome.”Nonetheless, Johnson has long shown willingness to back Trump’s claims about elections regardless of reality, playing a key role in supporting the former president’s attempts to overturn his defeat by Joe Biden in 2020.In a recent memoir, the anti-Trump Republican Liz Cheney said Johnson “played bait-and-switch” with colleagues to get them to support his legal efforts to have key state results thrown out while misrepresenting himself as a constitutional lawyer.Johnson said Cheney was “not presenting an accurate portrayal”. His legal work failed but even after the deadly January 6 attack on Congress by Trump supporters in early 2021, he was among 147 Republicans who voted to object to results in Pennsylvania and Arizona.On Friday, a statement released by the Trump campaign said Johnson had “agreed to hold a series of public committee hearings over the next two months … in advance of potential legislation to further safeguard our elections from interference”.Subjects of supposed concern included “mail-in voting processes and mail-ballot handling”, “voter registration list maintenance and how states will … prevent illegal immigrants and noncitizens from voting in the 2024 presidential election”; and “general preparations” for Trump’s rematch with Biden.Reporters raised other issues that have roiled Republican politics. Earlier, in Washington, Johnson oversaw passage of a bill to reauthorise the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or Fisa, including a key measure that allows for warrantless surveillance of American citizens. Trump and allies opposed the renewal, arising from his complaints about investigations of Russian election interference on his behalf in the 2016 race that sent him to the White House.Asked about the House bill, Trump said he still didn’t like Fisa and repeated his complaints about 2016. Johnson nodded behind him.Trump also opposes new aid for Ukraine, passed by the Senate but held up in the House. Johnson has said he wants to pass aid for Ukraine – but that could cause his downfall.At Mar-a-Lago, Trump kept the subject at arm’s length, verbally abusing Biden and claiming conflicts around the world would not have happened on his watch.He also castigated those prosecuting him criminally, including in the hush-money trial due to start in New York on Monday, over which he also complained about the judge. He was, he said, “absolutely” willing to testify in his own defence. More

    • 225 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      For the future of US abortion rights under a second Trump presidency, look to Arizona | Margaret Sullivan

      by

      Sometimes, in 2024 America, you have to pinch yourself to make sure you’re not in a long-running dystopian nightmare. Then again, maybe we all are. And no amount of pinching will help.Two scenes from this week stand out.One, thoroughly bizarre, was on the floor of the Arizona senate, where – led by a Republican state senator, Anthony Kern – a fundamentalist Christian prayer group “spoke in tongues” as they knelt together over the state seal, praying for a civil war-era abortion ban to become law again. Kern and the group got their wish; a day later, the Arizona supreme court ruled to allow the law to go into effect.Kern, naturally, is one of those under investigation for falsely claiming to be an Arizona elector as Donald Trump tried to overturn the 2020 election. He also got an Arizona bill passed allowing the Ten Commandments to be posted and read out loud in the state’s public school classrooms. If you had any lofty notions about the separation of church and state, consider them laid to rest.The other memorable scene was on the Larry Kudlow Show on the Fox Business channel, as three middle-aged white guys kicked around the aforementioned ruling by the Arizona supreme court. That 4-2 decision reinvigorates a 160-year-old law that says virtually all abortions are felonies. On the broadcast, radio host Mark Simone was blithe.“Buying a bus ticket to go somewhere to get it is not the worst thing in the world,” Simone – someone who will never be in that situation and apparently lacks the empathy to imagine it – opined.The bus-ticket solution might not even be an option. If Donald Trump is elected again, a national abortion ban is far from unlikely.Just a day before the Arizona ruling, the former US president came out with his long-promised, supposedly new stance on abortion rights, trying to spin up a moderate position. Declining to address whether he would support a national ban, he merely bragged about his role in the demise of Roe v Wade and suggested that abortion rights would now be up to the states, skipping over the obvious reality that they already are.He also blatantly lied about various things, like how Democrats think it’s fine to execute babies and how the entire spectrum of legal experts agreed that Roe should be overturned.Too many in the mainstream media swallowed this whole, at least in all-important headlines, presenting Trump’s position not only as news but as a politically savvy move toward the center.But something more like the truth was available if you turned your gaze from Washington to Arizona, where, in a matter of days, abortion providers can be sentenced to multiple years in prison for providing medical care.Some saw the meaning clearly.“This decision should serve as a warning for the rest of the country,” wrote lawyers Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern on Slate. “In the hands of a far-right court, a dead, openly misogynistic, wildly unpopular abortion ban can spring back to life with a vengeance.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionHow it all will play out is unclear. Since Roe was overturned, voters have expressed their displeasure. Pro-choice measures have carried the day in state after state, including some bright-red ones like Kentucky and Kansas. Next up is Florida, where voters will decide in November whether to override a six-week abortion ban with one that allows access until 24 weeks.Americans in the rightwing media bubble may not hear much about the Arizona ruling. Fox News gave it a mere 12 minutes on Tuesday (as opposed to two hours across eight shows on CNN), according to Media Matters research, and none of Fox’s big-name opinion hosts addressed it on their evening shows. Apparently, the highest priority is getting the cult leader elected again.The draconian decision in Arizona has the potential to deliver at least one swing state – maybe more – to Joe Biden. As my colleague at Columbia Journalism School, professor Bill Grueskin, quipped Tuesday: “It’s not too early for the Fox News decision desk to call Arizona for Biden.” (Fox famously made that controversial – though accurate – call on election night 2020, much to team Trump’s angry displeasure.)Contradictions abound. Trump, having unleashed the dogs on longstanding abortion rights with his supreme court appointments, is simultaneously taking credit for that, and denying that it could go any further. The rightwing media protects him; the mainstream media lets him portray his position as moderate and somehow consistent with the public’s preferences.As for non-politicians, particularly women of child-bearing age, the reality could get much, much worse.It’s a mess. But that’s life in our national nightmare. Let’s hope enough Americans wake up by November to reverse some of the damage.
      Margaret Sullivan is a Guardian US columnist writing on media, politics and culture More

    • 225 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Republicans want to use an 1873 law to ban abortion. Congress must overturn that law | Moira Donegan

      by

      They don’t need Congress. The anti-abortion movement is preparing to ban abortion nationwide as soon as a Republican takes the White House, and under a bizarre legal theory, they don’t think they even need congressional approval to do it. That’s because anti-choice radicals have begun to argue that an 1873 anti-obscenity law, the Comstock Act, effectively bans the mailing, sale, advertisement or distribution of any drug or implement that can be used to cause an abortion.For a long time, this was a fringe theory, only heard in the corners of the anti-choice movement with the most misogynist zealotry and the flimsiest concerns for reason. After all, the Comstock Act has not been enforced for more than half a century: many of its original provisions, banning contraception, were overturned; other elements, banning pornography and other “obscene” material, have been essentially nullified on free speech grounds.And, for decades, its ban on abortifacients was voided by Roe v Wade. Now that the US supreme court has thrown out the national abortion right, the anti-choice movement is reviving the long-forgotten law, claiming that the Comstock Act – named after a man who hunted down pornographers, threw early feminists in jail and bragged about driving abortion providers to suicide – should still be considered good law.It’s not a solid legal theory, but like a lot of flimsily reasoned, violently sexist and once-fringe arguments, it is now getting a respectful hearing at the supreme court. At last month’s oral arguments in a case regarding the legality of the abortion drug mifepristone, Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas both mentioned Comstock, implying that someone – perhaps the FDA, perhaps drug companies – was obliged to suppress abortion medication under the law. Comstock was not at issue in the mifepristone case, but the comments from the justices were not really about the case before them. Rather, they were a signal, a message meant for the conservative legal movement: if you bring us a case that seeks to ban abortion under Comstock, the judges were saying, we will vote for it.So it is a bit puzzling why, in an election year that promises to be dominated by outrage over abortion bans and the erosion of women’s rights, Democrats have not done more to convey the dangers of Comstock to the public. Admittedly, the problem is somewhat complicated and obscure, not quite the kind of thing that can fit on a bumper sticker. But voters have shown that they are willing to pay prolonged attention to the abortion issue: the continued political salience of Dobbs almost two years after the decision has proved this.Democrats have an opportunity, this election year, to corner Republicans on an unpopular issue, to make a case to the voters about the uses of giving them continued electoral power, and to articulate a vision for a modern, pluralist and tolerant society in which women can aspire to a meaningfully equal citizenship and in which ordinary citizens are endowed with the privacy and dignity to control their own sexual lives – without interference from the pantingly prurient Republican party.This election cycle, Democrats must take the obvious stand, and do what is right both in terms of politics and in terms of policy: they must call, en masse, for the repeal of the Comstock Act. Anything less would be political malpractice.It’s not as if Comstock is not being thoroughly embraced by the other side. In addition to its revival by the conservative legal movement and anti-choice activists, Comstock has found enthusiastic backers both in conservative thinktanks and among members of Congress. The rightwing Heritage Foundation cited a maximalist approach to Comstock interpretation and enforcement – and the nationwide total abortion ban that would result – as one of their priorities in their “Project 2025”, a policy plan for a coming Trump administration. Meanwhile, in an amicus brief issued to the supreme court in the mifepristone case, 119 Republican representatives and 26 Republican senators asked the court to ban abortion nationwide using Comstock.These conservatives know that their abortion bans are unpopular; they know that voters do not support the overturning of Roe v Wade, and will never vote for the total abortion bans that they aim for. This is precisely why they are seeking to achieve their ends through the judiciary, the one branch of the federal government that is uniquely immune to democratic accountability. And it is why, rather than attempting to ban abortion through the regular legislative process, they are seeking to do so via the revival of a long-forgotten statute, ignoring that Comstock has been void for decades to exploit the fact that it is technically still on the books.To their credit, a few Democratic lawmakers have begun to vocally campaign to overturn Comstock. The first was Cori Bush, of Missouri, who called for the repeal of what she termed the “zombie statute” in the hours after Comstock was mentioned at the court’s mifepristone oral arguments.She was joined days later by Senator Tina Smith, of Minnesota, who wrote in a New York Times op-ed that she wanted to repeal the law and “take away Comstock as a tool to limit reproductive freedom”. Smith says that she is working to form a coalition of Democratic House and Senate members to “build support and see what legislation to repeal the Comstock Act might look like”. Smith says that she wants to wait to see what, if anything, the supreme court says on the matter in its mifepristone decision, expected by the end of June.There is no need to wait. It is unlikely that any bill to repeal Comstock will get the 60 votes needed to pass the Senate; it is impossible that any such bill would make its way through the Republican-controlled House. But this means that Democrats have nothing to lose in waging a political campaign to draw attention to Comstock, and to force their Republican colleagues to take a stand on it. Voters deserve to know what they’re in for if a Republican captures the White House – and they deserve to know what the Republicans on their ballot think about their own rights to dignity, equality, privacy and sexual self-determination.There might be no item on the current political agenda that more aptly symbolizes the Republican worldview than Comstock. Never really workably enforced and long ignored as out of date, Comstock has come to stand in, in the rightwing imagination, for a virtuous, hierarchically ordered past that can be restored in a sexually repressive and tyrannically misogynistic future.This past never existed, not really, but the fantasy of it now has power in many corners of our law: among the reasons given by Samuel Alito in his majority opinion overturning Roe v Wade was his estimation that the right to an abortion was not “deeply rooted in America’s history and traditions”. This grimly nostalgic Republican aim to allow only those freedoms delineated in “history and tradition” would foreclose an America that adapts with time, that allows new forms of freedom to emerge from history.Comstock is a relic, and a relic is what the Republican right wants to turn America into. Democrats have a chance to make a case for it to be something else – something more like a democracy.
      Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist More