Independent News

This post was originally published on this site

Senate Republicans spit on the memory of civil rights hero John Lewis Wednesday afternoon when all but one of them blocked the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act from proceeding to the floor for debate, 50-49. Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski was the only Republican willing to join Democrats. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer changed his vote to “nay” so that he can bring the bill back to the floor at some point.

Republicans didn’t even filibuster it as none of them bothered to spend any time talking on the floor about it. They just gave the finger to democracy, as everyone—including Sen. Joe Manchin, who keeps insisting that Republicans will work with him—knew they would.

The bill would have restored the federal government’s ability to prohibit and prevent voting discrimination, which was lost when the Supreme Court gutted much of the 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA) in 2013 with the Shelby County v. Holder decision, then finished the job this year in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee. In Shelby, the Supreme Court struck down the requirement in the VRA that states and local jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination in voting had to have any change to voting or elections law preapproved by the Justice Department.

The Court declared that the formula used by the Justice Department to determine which jurisdictions were covered in this “preclearance” system was unconstitutional. A wave of new voter suppression laws flowed from Republican states in response. The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act would overcome that Supreme Court ruling by imposing a national preclearance system in which any state with 15 voting right violations on record within the past 25 years, or states that had 10 violations if “at least one of which was committed by the State itself” would be covered.

Any local government that had three violations in that time period would also be covered. All 50 states, regardless of their history or lack thereof of racist voting laws, would have to submit to a degree of preclearance for laws that reduce “the proportion of the jurisdiction’s voting-age population” belonging to particular racial or language minority group by 3% percent or more; redistricting laws in areas with significant minority population growth; certain voter ID laws; and closing or reducing the hours of polling places.

The bill would also have restored and strengthened protections abolished by the court in Brnovich, allowing courts to block voting laws on their discriminatory effect rather than intent, a harder threshold to prove. The court made proving discrimination much harder for plaintiffs, and gave lawmakers and election officials enacting discriminatory rules expansive leeway in the supposed interest of combating voting fraud—even in the total absence of evidence of such fraud. The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act would prohibit courts from considering factors like whether a particular voting restriction “has a long pedigree or was in widespread use at some earlier date,” or whether the law is defended as an effort to fight “fraud.”

Once again, Republicans were able to stop the Senate from even debating the bill without lifting so much as their pinkies. Neither Manchin nor Sen. Kyrsten Sinema did a thing to question that. Worse, they spent part of the vote cozying up to Mitch McConnell.

This, Democrats say, is the end of their efforts to get Republicans to do the right thing on voting rights. “This is our fourth, and I think final, attempt to find partners across the aisle who will defend the right of every American to vote,” Sen. Jeff Merkley, an Oregon Democrat, told reporters. “We’ve given it every possible effort over now five months, four different strategies. It’s not going to happen, so we’re going to have to do it with 50 members. And we’re going to have to sit down and decide how we’re going to do it.”

That means ending the filibuster, which Manchin and Sinema are continuing to refuse to do. “We’ve got Lisa Murkowski, we just need nine more,” Manchin said, sounding like either the world’s stupidest or most duplicitous man. “We need other people to be talking to each other and find a pathway forward. It can’t just be one or two people talking to both sides.”

No wonder McConnell is so cozy with him.

This post was originally published on this site

Virginia GOP Governor-elect Glenn Youngkin cracked the code. The consensus of multiple election analysis pieces is that Youngkin entertained the fringe views of Trump voters just enough while also managing to stay palatable to more mainstream voters in the suburbs. He did this in large part by barring Trump from the Commonwealth and assiduously avoiding most overt connections between himself and the wildly unpopular two-time popular vote loser.

Now, the thinking goes, all Republicans have to do next year is recreate Youngkin’s playbook.

In fact, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy—among the GOP’s biggest Trump bootlickers—was crowing Wednesday morning about House Republicans potentially netting more seats next year than they did in 2010 when they lost 63 seats in a red wave.

But replicating Youngkin’s playbook requires three fundamental elements to remain constant in 2022, which will be a nearly impossible task for congressional Republicans in the House and particularly the Senate.

The first requirement is the notion that none of the politics will change between now and next year. It’s a ridiculous proposition. If the only factor that matters in a midterm is which party controls the White House—then yeah, that’s not changing.

But other factors surely will have changed by next year. One very clear shift is the fact that Democrats will have likely passed two very important, even historic, bills by next November. So instead of heading into an election weighed down by the baggage of months of inaction in Washington accompanied by a gusher of negative political coverage, Democratic candidates will have something to run on. That will play a critical role in turning out the base and will also probably boost Biden’s approvals to some extent.  

Second, a Supreme Court with a distinctly fringe lean will have heard and ruled on a Mississippi abortion ban that could upend abortion rights across the country. It’s a visceral issue and a potentially historic setback that could very well ignite a cross-section of liberals and feminists nationwide.

Outside of a change in political environment is the fact that congressional Republicans have spinelessly and repeatedly bowed to Trump, even after voters booted him from office. That causes two fundamental problems for them. First, they will never have the strength to entirely keep Trump under wraps nationally the way Youngkin did locally in Virginia. Trump will be campaigning and holding rallies, and everything that so many voters hate about him will be on full display.

Second, Trump is currently in the process of handpicking a GOP field made in his likeness that has zero chance of projecting the mostly bland, unassuming, fleece- and khaki-wearing persona that Youngkin did.      

Just imagine former football star and Georgia GOP Senate candidate Herschel Walker, who owes his entire candidacy to Trump, keeping Trump at arm’s length. Or how about Trump’s pick for Pennsylvania’s open Senate seat, Sean Parnell, pulling off Youngkin’s mostly anodyne business persona as he faces the threat of losing custody of his three children amid a bitter divorce and abuse allegations?

Democrats are undoubtedly facing the headwinds of history next year based on the mere fact that Joe Biden is sitting in the Oval Office.

But the notion that Republicans will be able replicate the campaign Youngkin ran, even as Trump radicalizes the GOP congressional field, is laughable.

No one can say exactly what the pivotal issues will be by November 2022, but one thing is certain: Next year’s midterms will be a different election altogether.

This post was originally published on this site

On Tuesday, House Oversight Committee Chair Carolyn Maloney subpoenaed six fossil fuel entities in hopes of continuing the committee’s investigation into whether these organizations hid the dangers of climate change and their role in the climate crisis through disinformation campaigns. The American Petroleum Institute, BP America, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have until Nov. 16 to produce documents related to climate change.

Rep. Maloney noted that the information the six groups have so far provided was inadequate at best, and only included readily available public documents like press releases and regulatory filings. The committee has been waiting since Sept. 16 for more information and originally set a deadline of Sept. 30. Additional letters were sent Oct. 21 to the six entities, urging them to hand over documents.

Days later, the House Oversight Committee interviewed executives from many of these companies for the first time ever. Hoping for any semblance of honesty and transparency, committee members were consistently met with what one lawmaker described as “weasel words.”

“Is anyone prepared to make a statement saying we are going to take accountability on something important and stop funding groups that are actively engaged in any form of climate disinformation? Is there any form of commitment in any way? Even with a bunch of weasel words would be great,” Rep. Ro Khanna said during the hearing last Thursday.

Khanna wasn’t the only lawmaker exasperated by the likes of executives from Exxon Mobil, Shell Oil, BP America, and Chevron. Maloney called out the companies for failing to provide information requested by the committee in her closing statement. “The oil companies employed the same tactics they used for decades on climate policy—delay and obstruction,” Maloney said.

She followed up those remarks in a press release on Tuesday: “We are at ‘code red’ for climate, and I am committed to doing everything I can to help rescue this planet for our children. We need to get to the bottom of the oil industry’s disinformation campaign.  And with these subpoenas, we will.”

The subpoenas will move forward, albeit without the support of one ranking member of the committee—Rep. James Comer, who released a press release on Monday calling for Democrats to “cease political theatrics” when it comes to holding fossil fuel groups accountable. The Republican serves a coal-rich section of Kentucky but has been somewhat honest about the sector’s decline. He hasn’t, however, owned up to the fact that his campaign received thousands of dollars from the likes of ExxonMobil, Valero Energy, and Marathon Petroleum.

This post was originally published on this site

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is moving full steam ahead on getting the budget reconciliation bill that comprises President Joe Biden’s Build Back Better plan to the floor, despite the demands from Sen. Joe Manchin to delay, delay, delay. What’s more, the House will include a provision that Manchin opposes: four weeks of paid family leave.

“It had been my intention throughout this process to put on the House Floor and pass a bill that would pass the Senate in the same form,”  Pelosi informed her colleagues in a letter Wednesday morning. She announced that the text of the legislation would go to the Rules committee Wednesday. “Because I have been informed by a Senator of opposition to a few of the priorities contained in our bill and because we must have legislation agreed to by the House and the Senate in the final version of the Build Back Better Act that we will send to the President’s desk, we must strive to find common ground in the legislation.”

That said, the opposition of one Senator isn’t stopping the House. “As we are reviewing priorities and at the urging of many Members of the Caucus, I have asked the Ways and Means Committee for its legislation for Paid Family and Medical Leave to be included in this morning’s hearing,” she said. “Chairman Richie Neal and the Committee staff have worked on this priority for a long time and were ready.”

The provision for leave would “cover all workers wishing to take paid time off to deal with the birth of a newborn, care for a family member, or deal with an illness or injury, among other things, beginning in 2024,” a source told Politico.

Predictably, that one senator is balking. Manchin says he had “no idea” the provision was still alive and—here’s the big joke—he’s been talking to Republicans who want to do it in a bipartisan way. Right. Like that old Republican idea from Sen. Marco Rubio to steal from Social Security to “pay” workers for leave. No word on whether Manchin still thinks you can slap work requirements on people taking leave from . . . work.

Senate Democrats are working to isolate Manchin on this one. Sen. Patty Murray—who has been incensed at Manchin for blocking this—immediately responded to the news that Pelosi is including paid leave, saying, “I am incredibly relieved to see Speaker Pelosi include paid leave in the House Build Back Better Act. This is a key step forward—but we are not done fighting to get this across the finish line.” Senate Finance Chair Ron Wyden backed her up, saying he would “pull out all the stops for paid family leave.”

Before celebrating too much on this one, note this from Rep. Richie Neal: “The Ways and Means Committee crafted a policy that will finally give workers and their families the peace of mind of knowing that when disaster strikes, they can rely on paid leave to avoid total crisis. We do this responsibly, fully paying for the means-tested program. [emphasis added]” So actually not “all workers” after all. Maybe they’ll get Manchin. He loves him some means-testing. Still, four weeks of leave for lower-income people isn’t 12 weeks for literally everyone, but it’s also better than a bucket of warm spit.

There’s also a small—but at the same time huge—win in the prescription drug price reform agreement the House finally settled on with Sen. Kyrsten Sinema. It will cap the cost of insulin at $35 a month, for insured people, anyway. That’s for everyone with insurance, both Medicare and private insurance. It would take effect immediately.

In addition to that, it includes a cap on out-of-pocket prescription drug costs for Medicare enrollees at $2,000/year, with a smoothing proposal that will allow seniors to pay a monthly installment to cover those costs, rather than each time they fill their prescriptions. As for drug price negotiation for Medicare, it’s not what Biden proposed or what the majority of people and Democrats in Congress wanted, but it’s what the saboteurs would agree to: Medicare being able to negotiate drugs in Part B (drugs administered by providers, like in hospital or outpatient settings) and in Part D (drugs purchased directly by consumers), but only for drugs that are outside the “exclusivity” period—the time in which the Food and Drug Administration allows them a monopoly on the drug. That means some of the most expensive drugs can’t be negotiated. So-called “orphan drugs,” those generally very expensive drugs used to treat rare illnesses are also exempted from negotiations, as are drugs from “small biotech” firms, though their exemption expires in 2028.

It’s a start on drug price negotiating, a foot in the door. It’s enough to bring advocates along. “This means so much for people,” Anne Shoup, a senior adviser with Protect Our Care, told Greg Sargent and Paul Waldman at the Washington Post. “It’s a kitchen table issue. It affects their health and well-being—their ability to live their lives.”

AARP added a strong endorsement. “AARP applauds the leaders in Congress who have fought so hard for so long to get to this point,” CEO Jo Ann Jenkins said. “Now it is time for Congress to deliver for their constituents by passing a Build Back Better Act that will truly lower their prescription drug prices and improve the lives of millions of older Americans. We will not stop until the President signs legislation that lowers drug prices.”

There seems to be an agreed-upon strategy now for dealing with Manchin. Sinema was brought along through both prescription drug and tax provisions where she got a lot of say, so now Manchin stands alone. It looks like Democrats are ready to just, en masse, call his bluff and force him to be all by his lonesome, tanking his president’s agenda.

This post was originally published on this site

Private prison profiteer GEO Group has had yet another bad day in court. U.S. District Judge Robert Bryan ruled it must pay the state of Washington nearly $6 million “in unjust enrichment gained” through the company’s use of forced immigrant labor, state Attorney General Bob Ferguson’s office announced on Tuesday.

A federal jury had already said the private prison profiteer owed more than $17 million to detained immigrants forced to work at the Northwest ICE Processing Center (NWIPIC) for just $1 a day. Following the judge’s decision, the total amount that GEO Group must pay over its abuses now totals $23.2 million. “This is a landmark victory for workers’ rights and basic human dignity,” Ferguson said.

The jury determined last week that GEO Group violated the state’s minimum wage laws in paying immigrants detained at NWIPC $1 a day for their forced labor. Just $1 a day when GEO Group reported revenues of nearly $2.5 billion in 2019 alone, Prison Legal News said last year. The jury last week then awarded $17.3 million to immigrants “in a precedent-setting decision,” law firm Schroeter Goldmark & Bender said.

“Washington is the first state to sue a for-profit detention center for failure to pay minimum wage and for unjust enrichment,” the state attorney general’s office said. “Unjust enrichment is the increased value to GEO’s business generated from its unfair labor practices. For example, by pocketing the wages it didn’t pay over the years, GEO has had the benefit of that money for itself to invest in its business and pay its shareholders.”

Thousands of detained immigrants have borne the brunt of GEO Group’s greed, including being forced to clean in the middle of the night. “While officials portray the labor program as ‘voluntary’ in light of the 13th amendment of the US constitution, detained immigrants are often penalized for refusing to work,” Project South legal and advocacy director Azadeh Shahshahani wrote in The Guardian back in 2018. Some immigrants have been punished with solitary confinement, which is torture, for trying to refuse to work.

“Immigration detention center labor is a kind of murky area that’s been operating under the aegis of prison labor,” University of Buffalo sociology professor Erin Hatton told The Washington Post. “It’s been in dispute, but this ruling shows that they can’t get away with it without scrutiny.”

Like previously noted, among those forced to work at NWIPC was Nigerian asylum-seeker Goodluck Nwauzor, who has gained permanent residency since the time he was detained at the facility. During his detention, he was forced to clean a number of bathroom stalls used by dozens of men daily. “At the end of the day, I got one dollar,” he told the Post. He described officials making him and other detained alongside him feel like “animals,” the report continued. 

“We were afraid to ask some of the questions,” he told the Post. “You have no power of your own to do what you want to do. You have no control. They took advantage of us.”

The Post reports that following the court’s decisions, attorneys are now seeking out all immigrants who are eligible for a settlement, a task that could be difficult because they estimate only about one-quarter may actually still be in the U.S. The rest have presumably been deported. “Tracking people down is going to be a challenge, and we’re going to do the best we can,” attorney Adam Berger told the Post. 

This post was originally published on this site

The Washington Post here uses questions fielded by Bucks County, Pennsylvania, candidate for sheriff Mark Lomax as a jumping-off point to remind readers of the (ahem) bizarre right-wing beliefs that have coalesced under the codeword “constitutional sheriff.” I’m not sure it was necessary to give king crackpot Richard Mack so much of a voice—Mack is the far-right anti-government ex-Oath Keeper militia member who largely willed the “constitutional sheriff” scam into being, and has views that roughly equate to: “What if we did the Confederacy again, but this time I’m in charge?”

It also doesn’t go much into the very batshit extremism of the constitutional sheriff movement. At its heart, yes, the movement centers around a belief that for nebulous reasons, county sheriffs are actually the top tier of all American government, have the ability to nullify federal laws that they personally believe should be nullified, and that the rest of state and federal government is basically a scam encroaching on their turf.

It is a conspiracy theory developed and held by a very specific set of anti-government, arch-conservative rural western believers, and all of it, of course, was invented as justification for why rural western arch-conservatives should be able to take federal lands for their own purposes; fire off whatever guns they want at whatever fellow Americans disagree; and generally ignore whatever environmental, financial, or other laws government attempts to impose on them.

This is the general viewpoint that a crank Nevada rancher might use to turn cattle loose onto federal land, refuse to pay government grazing fees, refuse to round up the cattle despite the damage they’re doing or the danger to the public, and then assemble a group of armed revolution-minded militia members to surround and threaten to kill whatever federal workers show up to bring his cattle in themselves. For example.

It becomes “constitutional sheriff’n” when the law enforcement official currently voted into office wants to take your side of the fight, either for the sake of their next campaign issue or because they’ve been drinking the same off-smelling well water you have. That’s where people like Mack come in, in the attempt to cobble together these various sociopathic anti-government beliefs into a political constitutional sheriff brand with 6 inches of plausible deniability between it and the pro-insurrection militia groups planning and conducting acts of domestic terrorism.

Mostly, of course, it’s about guns. The constitutional sheriff phrase is an endorsement of militia beliefs about guns. It insists that they must not be regulated. It insists that approximately everybody should be allowed to have them, even people with histories that suggest they absolutely should not. It insists that the point of having them is not for sport or for hunting but to kill other Americans if and when those other Americans need killing. Maybe it’s to “protect your property.” Maybe it’s because a federal employee is telling you to follow a law you don’t want to follow.

It’s just the same damn militia movement as always. It needs rebranding after every decade or so after the then-top organizations become so notorious through the violent actions of their members that recruiting becomes difficult. The Post mentions that Mack himself bowed out of his top role in the Oath Keepers anti-government militia group after the militia became the face of assault weapon-carrying “protection” teams prowling the edges of Black Lives Matter protesters. From a branding standpoint, it was becoming a little too on-the-nose—or in-the-robes—for would-be political aspirants like Mack to defend.

The Oath Keepers would go on to play pivotal roles in the Jan. 6 insurrection, keeping true to their belief that the right time for rebelling against our nonfascist government is pretty much whenever you can manage it. Unfortunately for the constitutional sheriff brand, some of their own members have been tagged in that attempt to topple the U.S. government—again, because it’s the same movement!—which is both a pretty embarrassing bit of press for a whole movement that brands itself on following the Constitution and is accelerating the toxification of the phrase.

It turns out “constitutional sheriff” means “fascist advocates for the toppling of the federal government, badge-wearing edition.” FAFTTOTFG-BWE, however, is considerably harder to pronounce.

It’s the militia movement. That’s all it is. The militia movement has a sizable presence in law enforcement, and if you’re wondering why people who believe it is not only justified but outright patriotic to point guns at people tend to gravitate towards careers in law enforcement I don’t know what to tell you. It’d be like offering Sen. Josh Hawley a new job reviewing video games and porn; how could he possibly turn it down?

This post was originally published on this site

The Biden administration on Wednesday rescinded a policy more widely used by the previous administration that limited the number of asylum-seekers who could ask for protections at a port of entry daily. While “metering” had at times been practiced under the Obama administration, the previous administration made it official policy. The memo follows a court ruling last month finding the practice unconstitutional.

“This memo formally rescinds the Trump administration’s ‘metering’ policy, which was used to turn back asylum seekers trying to enter ports of entry (POE),” Customs and Border Protection (CBP) said in a statement report by CNN. “The new guidance lays out a vision for the lawful, orderly processing of individuals applying for asylum at POEs. Among other improvements, CBP is directed to accelerate ongoing efforts to digitize processing at POEs and more effectively use data to increase throughput.”

“Migrants seeking asylum can present at ports of entry to make their claim, but under the Trump administration, DHS put in place policies limiting the processing of undocumented immigrants, including asylum seekers, at ports,” CNN reported. “The practice, known as ‘metering,’ essentially created a waitlist to allow people to enter only if the department had the capacity to process and detain them at one of its facilities.”

But vulnerable people and their advocates raised early alarms about border officials turning away asylum-seekers even when they did have capacity to process asylum-seekers. Legal action, whistleblowers, and investigations would confirm their claims. 

“In a deposition, the whistleblower is asked, ‘So you were instructed to lie to people when turning them back. Is that right?’ The response: ‘We were instructed, yes,’” KPBS reported last year. Then last month, a lawsuit launched by journalist Bob Moore and his outlet El Paso Matters continued to reveal that border officers “routinely turned back” asylum-seekers even as enough space to process hundreds sat empty. “We knew, we knew, we knew [that the capacity explanation was untrue], and there was nothing that we could do about it,” Annunciation House founder Ruben Garcia told El Paso Matters.

A federal judge in San Diego this past September ruled against the practice, following a lawsuit launched by advocacy group Al Otro Lado and 13 asylum-seekers. “The court ruled that the United States is required by law to inspect and process asylum seekers when they present themselves at ports of entry, and condemned the practice of denying access to the asylum process through metering and similar practices,” the Southern Poverty Law Center said. The organization was among the groups representing Al Otro Lado and asylum-seekers.

It’s welcome news that this metering policy is gone, but because the Biden administration has continued to keep in place Stephen Miller’s anti-asylum Title 42 policy, “it is unclear how this will play out at the border,” noted Reuters immigration reporter Mica Rosenberg. Title 42 is a scientifically unsound, politically motivated policy that has used the pandemic as an excuse to quickly deport asylum-seekers. Experts further expressed concern about wording in the memo rescinding the metering policy:

Unpublished numbers obtained by CBS News last month painted one of the starkest images yet of the cruelty and depravity of the Title 42 policy, showing that of the hundreds of thousands of asylum-seekers subject to the policy since its implementation from March 2020 through September 2021, “only 3,217 migrants processed under the public health law have been referred for interviews with U.S. asylum officers.” Asylum Officers’ Union President Michael Knowles told CBS News the data was “very disturbing and alarming. Migrants are being prevented from exercising a basic human right, which is to apply for asylum.”

Public health experts have also continued to call on the Biden administration to end the use of Title 42, calling it “a pseudoscientific and discriminatory policy.” 

“When public health policy is subverted to serve political agendas, or to exclude, control, or discriminate against certain groups, we are all at risk,” they wrote. “War, persecution and torture do not pause for pandemics, and the right to seek asylum is enshrined in both domestic and international law.” They write that “we have an arsenal of proven public health tools, including testing, vaccines and other common sense public health measures that would allow the United States to process asylum-seekers effectively. It is time to definitively end Title 42.”

This post was originally published on this site

Ohio is on a fast track to becoming the real-life Gilead of The Handmaid’s Tale, with a new abortion bounty law more restrictive than the oppressive ban recently passed in Texas. 

House Bill 480, also known as the 2363 Act, named by its sponsors for the number of abortions performed in the nation daily, criminalizes abortions instead of improving Ohioans’ access to affordable childcare or helping families. 

Co-sponsored by over half of Ohio House Republicans, House Bill 480 bars any abortion from being performed in the state and allows “any person” to file a civil lawsuit with a $10,000 fine against anyone in Ohio who performs an abortion or “knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion,” including using health insurance to pay for it. 

Under the new law, those seeking an abortion in Ohio cannot claim to be ignorant of the law, decry its unconstitutionality, or rely on a court decision that is later overruled, even if the decision is overruled retroactively. 

But, the most egregious aspect of HB 480 is the lack of exceptions for rape or incest, although the victims cannot be sued by the rapist or anyone who impregnated them via sexual violence. 

“The sanctity of human life, born and preborn, must be preserved in Ohio,” state Rep. Jena Powell, a Darke County Republican who introduced the bill, said in a statement. “The 2363 Act is about protecting our fundamental, constitutional right to be born and live. Abortion kills children, scars families, and harms women. We can and must do better.”

Dayton Mayor Nan Whaley, a Democratic candidate for governor, blasted HB 480: 

“Once again, Ohio Republicans are attempting to throw away an Ohioans’ constitutional right to choose. This dangerous bill would criminalize abortion and encourage vigilantism in our state. Ohio deserves better than this anti-abortion extremism. Make no mistake, abortion is on the ballot in 2022. As Governor, I’ll veto any anti-abortion legislation that comes across my desk. With constant attacks on choice on the rise, Ohio needs a pro-choice Governor who can act as the last line of defense in protecting abortion rights in our state,” Whaley said.

HB 480 follows Ohio’s failed “heartbeat bill” in banning abortions performed when a heartbeat is detected, at about six weeks; a federal judge blocked that law from being passed. But, Ohio is on a mission to end abortions in the state altogether and has passed several other regulatory restrictions. 

As reported on Cleveland.com, the number of abortion clinics operation in Ohio has been cut in half—and more are on the way if new legislation passes in the Senate. 

Kellie Copeland, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio, tells Cincinnati.com that she fears the law may deputize “anti-abortion vigilantes” in the state. 

“We know when things are criminalized, Black folks, women of color, and nonbinary people are the ones most under scrutiny,” Copeland said. “Other people who have the money will find a way to flee Ohio to get the care they need.” 

Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments from Texas regarding its SB8 law, and some have said things didn’t go well for the state. That Justices Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett challenged the law, but I wouldn’t get too excited; last month, the Court allowed SB8 to go into effect, forcing hundreds of women to drive out of the state for safe abortions. 

According to Communication Director Zack Gingrich-Gaylord of the Trust Women Clinic in Oklahoma City, OK, since SB8 went into effect, their patient load has nearly doubled. Gingrich-Gaylord told KFOR-4 in Oklahoma that patients come from places as far south as Galveston or Corpus Christi, Texas. The clinic has been so swamped that they’re suggesting patients seeking abortions go to Wichita, Kansas.

“It’s not good,” Gingrich-Gaylord says. “These are patients who would otherwise be going to seek care in their own communities. The surrounding states are not that big, and they don’t have that many clinics. So, it’s creating a significant strain on the neighboring states to Texas.”

So, as we tumble down into some kind of horrifying dystopian reality, next month the Supreme Court will review a separate abortion case from Mississippi, where the state is asking justices to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, legalizing abortions nationwide. 

This post was originally published on this site

There’s probably nothing more predictable in an election loss than this—conservative Democrats with a Politico reporter on speed-dial rushing to kneecap their progressive colleagues:

Interestingly enough, that’s not the takeaway from Third Way, the longtime policy group friend of the Blue Dog Democrats. “The months of in-fighting and sausage-making must come to an end,” Matt Bennett, executive vice president of the group, said in a statement. “We must pass these two historic bills and then explain what they will do to create jobs, cut taxes, and help working families afford the essentials.” 

“Three cheers for Third Way” is a sentiment you might never expect to show up on the front page of Daily Kos, but when they’re right, they’re right. The sabotage of President Joe Biden’s agenda has not been coming from the left of the Democratic congress, but from the right.

“Republicans are intent on using the lessons they learned in Virginia, including the power of cynical distortion and outright lying about cultural and race issues, to try to take back Congress next year,” Bennett continued. “The dangers of the anti-democratic, Trumpified GOP taking control are enormous. Democrats must show that they are the mainstream party of the Joe Biden who won the primary and the general election. That’s the only way back.”

There is no aid and comfort to the Sabotage Squad from there, so they’ll have to keep relying on Politico. Funnily enough, the Democrats willing to go on the record there aren’t falling for the “Dems in disarray” trap. Even California Rep. Scott Peters, who has been fighting on behalf of PhRMA to make sure Medicare can’t negotiate prescription drug prices, wouldn’t play. Not for the record, anyway. “The picture has been of Democrats sparring amongst ourselves. That’s probably not the best face to put out,” he said. “I hope that there’s more of working toward agreement, like we had today, than openly sparring with each other.”

“People in my district don’t care what happens in the Virginia governor’s race,” said Pennsylvania Rep. Matt Cartwright, a Democrat, who eked out a win in a Trump-supporting northeast district last fall. “A year from now, what happened in the Virginia governor’s race will be a distant, dim memory.”

That’s not going to keep the conservative Democrats from carping off the record to a Fox News reporter. Chad Pergram tweets that they’re “fired up this morning after the losses in Virginia,” and  that one tells him “Hopefully progressives will get the wake-up call.” 

They’re still pushing to decouple the hard infrastructure bill from the budget reconciliation that holds all of the things that will actually help people so that they can continue to delay, delay, delay that bill. That’s the tactic we’ve been seeing from the House Sabotage Squad and their Senate cheerleaders, Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, for months. 

The not-conservative members of the Democratic Congress, however, aren’t falling for it. They’re not fighting the linkage of the bill, and they’re still pressing for action.

There are many reasons for the loss in Virginia. When it comes down to it, most of them are because Republicans once again so skillfully tapped into fear and racism and the ongoing pandemic zeitgeist. It was masks and vaccines in schools and critical race theory and transphobia, not paid family leave and carbon offsets.

No one was voting for Manchin or Sinema in Virginia on Tuesday. Shame on any Democrat who tries to exploit that by further sabotaging not just their colleagues, but their president.