shareblue--2020-10-27--Here's how Barrett could hurt LGBTQ rights now that she's on the Supreme Court

On Monday , a week before Election Day , the Senate confirmed the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett , who has a long record of anti-LGBTQ remarks and positions , to the Supreme Court by a vote of 52-48 .
Barrett 's confirmation creates a conservative majority on the Supreme Court as it prepares to hears arguments in a number of cases that are of monumental importance to the LGBTQ community .
These include the Republican effort to invalidate the Affordable Care Act , which includes regulations that provide protections to LGBTQ people in health care , and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-LGBTQ discrimination in food banks , foster care , and other services funded by taxpayer money .
Barrett 's record on issues such as marriage equality , transgender people 's rights , and anti-LGBTQ discrimination is deeply concerning to LGBTQ advocacy groups .
More than 180 LGBTQ organizations , including the Human Rights Campaign , Lambda Legal , Transgender Law Center , and the National Black Justice Coalition , signed a letter in official opposition to her nomination .
`` Her presence on the Court would change the current balance of the Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ likely to cause lasting harm to LGBTQ people and other vulnerable groups , '' the organizations said .
Barrett has been associated with groups and institutions determined to fight LGBTQ equality and aligned herself with court opinions opposing LGBTQ rights .
In a lecture she gave in 2016 , Barrett called transgender women `` physiological males '' and said the dissent in the landmark Supreme Court case of Obergefell v. Hodges against marriage equality was over whether the court should decide the question rather than a matter of opposing or supporting LGBTQ people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Alliance Defending Freedom , an organization that is considered an anti-LGBTQ hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center .
She spoke at a number of events for the Blackstone Legal Fellowship , a program run by the alliance .
The Associated Press reported last week that Barrett also served on the board of a private Christian school that holds that homosexuality is an abomination against God and blocks the children of same-sex couples from attending , as well as keeping gay teachers from working in its locations .
The same year that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , she signed on to a letter that affirmed the truth of Catholic Church teachings on `` marriage and family founded on the indissoluble commitment of a man and a woman '' and `` the significance of sexual difference and complementarity of men and women . ''
When asked about matters of LGBTQ equality during her confirmation hearings and on the questionnaire she filled out for the Senate Judiciary Committee , Barrett consistently dodged the question .
But during one of the sessions of her confirmation hearing , Barrett called sexual orientation `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ groups called a `` dog whistle '' to opponents of LGBTQ people 's rights .
These are all signs that Barrett 's presence on the court is bad news for LGBTQ people and their allies who wish to see the court rule in favor of their equality and human rights .
Fulton v. City of Philadelphia , which is scheduled to be argued before the court on Nov. 4 , centers on a suit filed against the city by Catholic Social Services .
The city had stopped referring foster children to the organization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other based on claims of religious beliefs .
In August , the American Civil Liberties Union filed a brief telling the court it should rule against a `` license to discriminate in taxpayer-funded services . ''
Lindsay Mahowald and Carolina Medina , staff members at the Center for American Progress ' LGBTQ Research and Communications Project , wrote about the possible effects of a ruling in the case on LGBTQ people 's access to government services this month .
They noted that a ruling against the city would also effect homeless shelters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and food banks , adding to the barriers LGBTQ people already face in seeking these services .
`` If agencies demand public funding while providing government services that violate the terms of their contracts , it would be nearly impossible for state and local governments to standardize the provision of public services , '' they wrote .
`` Moreover , it would undermine the goal of these services—to reach eligible recipients , not provide private entities with government contracts .
The realization of such discriminatory policies is detrimental to public health and safety @ @ @ @ @ @ @ service delivery . ''
Sen. Mike Lee ( R-UT ) asked Barrett about issues of religious liberty during a confirmation hearing .
Barrett responded that the court has been `` very clear that religious institutions ca n't be discriminated against , or excluded from public programs , simply because they are religious . ''
California v. Texas , scheduled to be heard on Nov. 10 , concerns the validity of the Affordable Care Act and could result in the elimination of the health care law in its entirety , which would have devastating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Republican state attorneys general brought the case to the Supreme Court and are arguing that the Obamacare is unconstitutional .
The Trump administration said it wants the court to strike down the law .
Barrett signed a statement calling the law 's contraception coverage a `` grave infringement on religious liberty '' and wrote an essay criticizing Chief Justice John Roberts ' majority opinion in a case that left the law intact .
Section 1557 of the ACA includes protections for transgender people .
It prohibits discrimination in health care on the basis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ includes transgender people under the term `` gender identity . ''
This year , the Trump administration issued a final rule that eliminated that definition of sex discrimination , but a federal judge has blocked it from going into effect .
LGBTQ policy advocates have said they are concerned that a more conservative court could undo the progress LGBTQ people have made in health care access thanks to the ACA , a prospect that is particularly worrisome during the coronavirus pandemic .
Experts on LGBTQ policy and law have previously expressed concerns about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rule on in the near future , including same-sex couples ' access to certain federal benefits and recognitions , abortion access , and LGBTQ people 's asylum claims .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

On Monday, a week before Election Day, the Senate confirmed the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who has a long record of anti-LGBTQ remarks and positions, to the Supreme Court by a vote of 52-48.
Barrett’s confirmation creates a conservative majority on the Supreme Court as it prepares to hears arguments in a number of cases that are of monumental importance to the LGBTQ community. These include the Republican effort to invalidate the Affordable Care Act, which includes regulations that provide protections to LGBTQ people in health care, and a case that could open the door to anti-LGBTQ discrimination in food banks, foster care, and other services funded by taxpayer money.
Barrett’s record on issues such as marriage equality, transgender people’s rights, and anti-LGBTQ discrimination is deeply concerning to LGBTQ advocacy groups. More than 180 LGBTQ organizations, including the Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal, Transgender Law Center, and the National Black Justice Coalition, signed a letter in official opposition to her nomination.
“Her presence on the Court would change the current balance of the Court dramatically, in ways that are highly likely to cause lasting harm to LGBTQ people and other vulnerable groups,” the organizations said.
Barrett has been associated with groups and institutions determined to fight LGBTQ equality and aligned herself with court opinions opposing LGBTQ rights. In a lecture she gave in 2016, Barrett called transgender women “physiological males” and said the dissent in the landmark Supreme Court case of Obergefell v. Hodges against marriage equality was over whether the court should decide the question rather than a matter of opposing or supporting LGBTQ people marrying.
Barrett has ties to the Alliance Defending Freedom, an organization that is considered an anti-LGBTQ hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. She spoke at a number of events for the Blackstone Legal Fellowship, a program run by the alliance.
The Associated Press reported last week that Barrett also served on the board of a private Christian school that holds that homosexuality is an abomination against God and blocks the children of same-sex couples from attending, as well as keeping gay teachers from working in its locations.
The same year that Barrett became a trustee for the board, she signed on to a letter that affirmed the truth of Catholic Church teachings on “marriage and family founded on the indissoluble commitment of a man and a woman” and “the significance of sexual difference and complementarity of men and women.”
When asked about matters of LGBTQ equality during her confirmation hearings and on the questionnaire she filled out for the Senate Judiciary Committee, Barrett consistently dodged the question. But during one of the sessions of her confirmation hearing, Barrett called sexual orientation “sexual preference,” which some advocacy groups called a “dog whistle” to opponents of LGBTQ people’s rights.
These are all signs that Barrett’s presence on the court is bad news for LGBTQ people and their allies who wish to see the court rule in favor of their equality and human rights.
Fulton v. City of Philadelphia
Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, which is scheduled to be argued before the court on Nov. 4, centers on a suit filed against the city by Catholic Social Services. The city had stopped referring foster children to the organization due to its discrimination against same-sex couples and other based on claims of religious beliefs.
In August, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a brief telling the court it should rule against a “license to discriminate in taxpayer-funded services.”
Lindsay Mahowald and Carolina Medina, staff members at the Center for American Progress’ LGBTQ Research and Communications Project, wrote about the possible effects of a ruling in the case on LGBTQ people’s access to government services this month. They noted that a ruling against the city would also effect homeless shelters, hospitals, disaster relief agencies, and food banks, adding to the barriers LGBTQ people already face in seeking these services.
“If agencies demand public funding while providing government services that violate the terms of their contracts, it would be nearly impossible for state and local governments to standardize the provision of public services,” they wrote. “Moreover, it would undermine the goal of these services—to reach eligible recipients, not provide private entities with government contracts. The realization of such discriminatory policies is detrimental to public health and safety as well as effective and efficient government service delivery.”
Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) asked Barrett about issues of religious liberty during a confirmation hearing. Barrett responded that the court has been “very clear that religious institutions can’t be discriminated against, or excluded from public programs, simply because they are religious.”
California v. Texas
California v. Texas, scheduled to be heard on Nov. 10, concerns the validity of the Affordable Care Act and could result in the elimination of the health care law in its entirety, which would have devastating effects on the LGBTQ community.
Eighteen Republican state attorneys general brought the case to the Supreme Court and are arguing that the Obamacare is unconstitutional. The Trump administration said it wants the court to strike down the law. Barrett signed a statement calling the law’s contraception coverage a “grave infringement on religious liberty” and wrote an essay criticizing Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion in a case that left the law intact.
Section 1557 of the ACA includes protections for transgender people. It prohibits discrimination in health care on the basis of sex, which it explicitly says includes transgender people under the term “gender identity.” This year, the Trump administration issued a final rule that eliminated that definition of sex discrimination, but a federal judge has blocked it from going into effect.
LGBTQ policy advocates have said they are concerned that a more conservative court could undo the progress LGBTQ people have made in health care access thanks to the ACA, a prospect that is particularly worrisome during the coronavirus pandemic.
Experts on LGBTQ policy and law have previously expressed concerns about other issues that a Trump-appointed justice could rule on in the near future, including same-sex couples’ access to certain federal benefits and recognitions, abortion access, and LGBTQ people’s asylum claims.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-10-27--Trump loses it as Biden closes in on Texas

On Monday , Donald Trump blasted `` suppression polls '' for suggesting he could lose the state of Texas on Election Day .
At a rally in Martinsburg , Pennsylvania , Trump said that Texas Gov .
Greg Abbott had personally called him up to assure him that presidential election polls showing Trump with only a narrow lead over former Vice President Joe Biden were wrong .
`` So he goes — And then they say , 'President Trump is four points up in Texas . '
And the governor calls me from Texas .
Great guy , Greg .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ not true .
You 're up a lot , ' '' Trump ranted .
`` But they do n't say that .
But think of it , you 're against oil , we 're in Texas , you 're against oil , you 're against God , you 're against guns , in Texas , guns in Texas . '
'' There 's no doubt Trump has the edge on Biden in Texas , a state that has not voted blue for nearly 45 years .
But his lead is narrow , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FiveThirtyEight indicates Trump 's overall polling average hands him a 1.3-point lead in Texas .
In its most recent accounting , the site , simulating the election 40,000 times , found that in 67 out of 100 possible outcomes , Trump wins Texas , and in 33 out of 100 outcomes , Biden does .
The most recent New York Times/Siena College poll — likely the one Trump referenced in his Pennsylvania remarks — indicates that Trump is ahead by 4 points in Texas .
But a Data for Progress poll in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ last week indicated a 1-point lead for Biden , and two recent University of Texas polls showed Biden up by 2 and 3 points , respectively .
This tracks with results from last week , when a Morning Consult poll sampling more than 3,000 likely voters in Texas showed Biden up by 1 , and a Quinnipiac University poll showed Biden and Trump in a dead heat , each polling at 47 % .
Moreover , Trump 's popularity in Texas has never matched that of other presidential candidates .
He won Texas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thinnest margin for a Republican presidential candidate in more than 20 years .
For contrast , George W. Bush won Texas in both 2000 and 2004 by more than 20 points ; John McCain beat Barack Obama in Texas in 2008 by nearly 12 points ; and Mitt Romney carried the state in 2012 by nearly 16 points .
Not since Bob Dole in 1996 has a Republican candidate fared so poorly in Texas .
Democratic vice presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris plans to campaign in Texas as Election Day nears .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Texas Gov .
Rick Perry stated Sunday that Trump would not be visiting Texas in the next few days .
`` Texas is not a battleground state , '' Perry said flatly .
Texas Democratic Party spokesperson Abhi Rahman disagreed , telling the Texas Tribune this week that Perry was either `` delusional or in denial — or a combination of both . ''
`` Texas is the biggest battleground state , period , '' Rahman said .
`` Poll after poll shows that Texas is up for grabs and the Trump campaign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the votes or the lives of Texans . ''
Rahman told the Caller-Times in Corpus Christi last week : `` Texas added 1.8 million new registered voters since 2016 , and based on what we know about them , we think 60 % of them are likely to be Democrats . ''
Experts and political figures have noted that no one really knows what will happen in Texas come Election Day .
The race is up in the air , and a Trump victory , while far from secured , remains one likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen as a possible scenario for the state as well .
Jim Henson of the University of Texas/Texas Tribune polls noted earlier this month that although a Biden victory in Texas `` has not become probable , it 's gone into the realm of the plausible . ''
Beto O'Rourke , the former Democratic congressman and candidate for U.S. Senate , collaborated with Tory Gavito , co-founder and president of the progressive organization Way to Win , on an op-ed published in the Washington Post in which they argue that Biden could win @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the effort .
O'Rourke and Gavito note that Texas polls are unreliable and tend to underestimate Democratic voter turnout , since Texas has many transplants , young voters , and voters of color whose voting habits are hard to predict .
They say that Texas polls `` underestimated Hillary Clinton 's performance by 4.9 % '' in 2016 .
`` That gives us reason to believe polling in Texas this cycle masks a potential Biden victory , '' O'Rourke and Gavito write .
`` He has consistently been running better than any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to look back to 1976 — the last time a Democratic presidential candidate won Texas — for a race this tight . ''
O'Rourke himself lost his race in 2018 to incumbent Republican Sen. Ted Cruz by a mere 2.6 % , the closest a Democratic challenger has come to winning a statewide race for the Senate since 1978 .
`` Turnout is completely unprecedented , '' said Lina Hidalgo , a judge in Harris County , Texas .
`` And you better bet that the folks who are turning out are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quo . ''
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

On Monday, Donald Trump blasted “suppression polls” for suggesting he could lose the state of Texas on Election Day.
At a rally in Martinsburg, Pennsylvania, Trump said that Texas Gov. Greg Abbott had personally called him up to assure him that presidential election polls showing Trump with only a narrow lead over former Vice President Joe Biden were wrong.
“So he goes — And then they say, ‘President Trump is four points up in Texas.’ And the governor calls me from Texas. Great guy, Greg. He said, ‘Sir, that’s not true. You’re up a lot,'” Trump ranted. “But they don’t say that. But think of it, you’re against oil, we’re in Texas, you’re against oil, you’re against God, you’re against guns, in Texas, guns in Texas.'”
There’s no doubt Trump has the edge on Biden in Texas, a state that has not voted blue for nearly 45 years. But his lead is narrow, and victory is not a done deal.
FiveThirtyEight indicates Trump’s overall polling average hands him a 1.3-point lead in Texas.
In its most recent accounting, the site, simulating the election 40,000 times, found that in 67 out of 100 possible outcomes, Trump wins Texas, and in 33 out of 100 outcomes, Biden does.
The most recent New York Times/Siena College poll — likely the one Trump referenced in his Pennsylvania remarks — indicates that Trump is ahead by 4 points in Texas.
But a Data for Progress poll in the state taken over the same time period last week indicated a 1-point lead for Biden, and two recent University of Texas polls showed Biden up by 2 and 3 points, respectively.
This tracks with results from last week, when a Morning Consult poll sampling more than 3,000 likely voters in Texas showed Biden up by 1, and a Quinnipiac University poll showed Biden and Trump in a dead heat, each polling at 47%.
Moreover, Trump’s popularity in Texas has never matched that of other presidential candidates. He won Texas in 2016 by 9 points, the thinnest margin for a Republican presidential candidate in more than 20 years.
For contrast, George W. Bush won Texas in both 2000 and 2004 by more than 20 points; John McCain beat Barack Obama in Texas in 2008 by nearly 12 points; and Mitt Romney carried the state in 2012 by nearly 16 points.
Not since Bob Dole in 1996 has a Republican candidate fared so poorly in Texas.
Democratic vice presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris plans to campaign in Texas as Election Day nears. But Trump campaign spokesperson Tim Murtaugh and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry stated Sunday that Trump would not be visiting Texas in the next few days.
“Texas is not a battleground state,” Perry said flatly.
Texas Democratic Party spokesperson Abhi Rahman disagreed, telling the Texas Tribune this week that Perry was either “delusional or in denial — or a combination of both.”
“Texas is the biggest battleground state, period,” Rahman said. “Poll after poll shows that Texas is up for grabs and the Trump campaign still doesn’t give a damn about the votes or the lives of Texans.”
Rahman told the Caller-Times in Corpus Christi last week: “Texas added 1.8 million new registered voters since 2016, and based on what we know about them, we think 60% of them are likely to be Democrats.”
Experts and political figures have noted that no one really knows what will happen in Texas come Election Day. The race is up in the air, and a Trump victory, while far from secured, remains one likely outcome.
But a Biden win is seen as a possible scenario for the state as well.
Jim Henson of the University of Texas/Texas Tribune polls noted earlier this month that although a Biden victory in Texas “has not become probable, it’s gone into the realm of the plausible.”
Beto O’Rourke, the former Democratic congressman and candidate for U.S. Senate, collaborated with Tory Gavito, co-founder and president of the progressive organization Way to Win, on an op-ed published in the Washington Post in which they argue that Biden could win Texas if he invested energy and money into the effort.
O’Rourke and Gavito note that Texas polls are unreliable and tend to underestimate Democratic voter turnout, since Texas has many transplants, young voters, and voters of color whose voting habits are hard to predict. They say that Texas polls “underestimated Hillary Clinton’s performance by 4.9%” in 2016.
“That gives us reason to believe polling in Texas this cycle masks a potential Biden victory,” O’Rourke and Gavito write. “He has consistently been running better than any Democratic candidate in decades. You would have to look back to 1976 — the last time a Democratic presidential candidate won Texas — for a race this tight.”
O’Rourke himself lost his race in 2018 to incumbent Republican Sen. Ted Cruz by a mere 2.6%, the closest a Democratic challenger has come to winning a statewide race for the Senate since 1978.
“Turnout is completely unprecedented,” said Lina Hidalgo, a judge in Harris County, Texas. “And you better bet that the folks who are turning out are not turning out to keep the status quo.”
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-10-27--Trump evidently doesn't want votes from the military to count

Donald Trump 's latest attack on voting could undermine the right of many active-duty military members to have their votes counted in the 2020 elections .
On Tuesday , Trump again demanded that the election be decided on November 3 , rather than waiting for all ballots to be received and counted .
He falsely suggested that it is illegal to count any ballots received in the days following the election .
`` It would be very , very proper and very nice if a winner were declared on November 3 , '' he told reporters .
`` Instead of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is totally inappropriate , and I do n't believe that 's by our laws .
I do n't believe that . ''
While it is unclear whether Trump is familiar with the law , many states allow ballots postmarked by Election Day but received later to be counted — especially when those ballots come from military and overseas voters .
Indeed Trump 's own new `` home '' state of Florida has long required that ballots sent by that ground be counted , even if they have not arrived by Election Day .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ days from election day to mail back a vote-by-mail ballot .
This 10-day extension only applies in presidential preference primary elections , general elections , and special elections and special primary elections ( by operation of section 100.191 , F.S . )
, '' the state 's Division of Elections website notes .
`` The overseas voter 's vote-by-mail ballot must be postmarked or dated by Election Day and received within 10 days of the election in order to be counted , provided the ballot is otherwise proper . ''
This is not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the U.S. armed services .
He took billions of dollars appropriated by Congress for military families and repurposed it to pay for a massive southern border wall — one he 'd previously promised would be paid for entirely by Mexico .
He refused to even ask Vladimir Putin about intelligence showing that the Russian president had put bounties on the heads of U.S. troops in Afghanistan .
He reportedly called Americans who died while serving `` losers '' and `` suckers , '' and he mocked U.S. prisoners of war , like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , saying `` I like people that were n't captured . ''
Polling suggests there might be a good reason Trump would not want military ballots counted .
A Military Times survey in August of active duty service members found that 41.3 % preferred Joe Biden in the 2020 elections , compared to just 37.4 % support for Trump .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Donald Trump’s latest attack on voting could undermine the right of many active-duty military members to have their votes counted in the 2020 elections.
On Tuesday, Trump again demanded that the election be decided on November 3, rather than waiting for all ballots to be received and counted. He falsely suggested that it is illegal to count any ballots received in the days following the election.
“It would be very, very proper and very nice if a winner were declared on November 3,” he told reporters. “Instead of counting ballots for two weeks, which is totally inappropriate, and I don’t believe that’s by our laws. I don’t believe that.”
While it is unclear whether Trump is familiar with the law, many states allow ballots postmarked by Election Day but received later to be counted — especially when those ballots come from military and overseas voters.
Indeed Trump’s own new “home” state of Florida has long required that ballots sent by that ground be counted, even if they have not arrived by Election Day.
“An overseas voter has 10 extra days from election day to mail back a vote-by-mail ballot. This 10-day extension only applies in presidential preference primary elections, general elections, and special elections and special primary elections (by operation of section 100.191, F.S.),” the state’s Division of Elections website notes. “The overseas voter’s vote-by-mail ballot must be postmarked or dated by Election Day and received within 10 days of the election in order to be counted, provided the ballot is otherwise proper.”
This is not the first time Trump has undermined members of the U.S. armed services.
He took billions of dollars appropriated by Congress for military families and repurposed it to pay for a massive southern border wall — one he’d previously promised would be paid for entirely by Mexico.
He refused to even ask Vladimir Putin about intelligence showing that the Russian president had put bounties on the heads of U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
He reportedly called Americans who died while serving “losers” and “suckers,” and he mocked U.S. prisoners of war, like the late Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), saying “I like people that weren’t captured.”
Polling suggests there might be a good reason Trump would not want military ballots counted. A Military Times survey in August of active duty service members found that 41.3% preferred Joe Biden in the 2020 elections, compared to just 37.4% support for Trump.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-10-27--Concerned 'voters' in GOP Senate ads are actually just actors

Two Republican super PACs are running ads for U.S. Senate races in Kansas , Maine , and Iowa that all feature the same actors expressing concern about issues in their supposed states .
Democratic candidate Barbara Bollier , who is running against GOP Rep. Roger Marshall , and who is the target of the Kansas ads , tweeted out a video of the two pairs of actors on Sunday , blasting the PACs ' use of recycled characters .
“ Mitch McConnell ’ s allies have poured $ 25+ million into our race .
And that can buy a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Or maybe he and the D.C. elite just ca n't find Kansans ( or Iowans ) who agree with their talking points , '' Bollier wrote , referring to the Senate Leadership Fund — a Republican PAC founded by allies of the Senate majority leader , which was behind two of the ads .
One of the spots in question is a Kansas ad by American Crossroads , a PAC founded by Republican strategist Karl Rove .
It features an actress saying , `` Barbara Bollier seems really nice .
She says she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her policy positions are just not mine . ''
Another ad in Iowa from the Senate Leadership Fund features the same actress .
The ad , which attacks Democratic Senate candidate Theresa Greenfield , who is facing off with incumbent Sen. Joni Ernst in November , shows that actress saying , `` Families across Iowa are struggling with this economy , with the pandemic .
Keeping our health care is crucial .
...
But the Theresa Greenfield-Nancy Pelosi health care plan could take away our employer-provided health insurance . ''
A third ad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actress as well .
`` We can ’ t trust [ Sen. Susan Collins 's Democratic opponent ] Sara Gideon , '' she says .
The two political action committees often work closely together , according to the New York Times .
In a separate ad paid for by the Senate Leadership Fund , an actor is shown questioning whether Bollier is `` independent . ''
That same actor appeared in another ad in Iowa — this time paid for by American Crossroads — giving a misleading representation of Greenfield 's business record @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
`` Theresa Greenfield literally signed notices to kick Iowa small businesses to the curb , to bring in a big chain store . ''
As HuffPost notes , `` None of the ads are sanctioned by the Republican campaigns they seek to boost . ''
The ads come as no surprise to experts on those races .
Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts ( R ) , who is retiring after four terms , noted that the GOP groups appear to be spending millions to help offset Bollier 's record fundraising .
According to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already spent $ 6 million on ads to aid Marshall 's campaign alone .
“ It ’ s indicative of where we are .
He 's getting outspent 3-1 , '' said Roberts .
Marshall and Bollier , both physicians , are vying for his soon-to-be-vacant seat .
Bollier , a retired anesthesiologist , shattered quarterly records when her campaign raised $ 13.5 million between July and September .
To date , she has raised more than $ 24 million , four times as much as Marshall , who has raised just under @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Secrets .
The ad spending also comes as Democrats target those same races , infusing them with loads of cash in last-minute ad buys .
As the Associated Press notes , Democratic groups have spent $ 3.5 million against Collins over the past few weeks , and more than $ 1 million against Ernst as well , even as GOP groups scramble to dump money into those regions .
Experts from both parties say there are still undecided voters to turn this election .
`` It ’ s a folly to assume these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through Election Day , '' said J.B. Poersch , president of the Democratic Senate Majority PAC .
Published with permission from The American Independent Foundation .

Two Republican super PACs are running ads for U.S. Senate races in Kansas, Maine, and Iowa that all feature the same actors expressing concern about issues in their supposed states.
Democratic candidate Barbara Bollier, who is running against GOP Rep. Roger Marshall, and who is the target of the Kansas ads, tweeted out a video of the two pairs of actors on Sunday, blasting the PACs’ use of recycled characters.
“Mitch McConnell’s allies have poured $25+ million into our race. And that can buy a lot — but apparently not new actors. Or maybe he and the D.C. elite just can’t find Kansans (or Iowans) who agree with their talking points,” Bollier wrote, referring to the Senate Leadership Fund — a Republican PAC founded by allies of the Senate majority leader, which was behind two of the ads.
One of the spots in question is a Kansas ad by American Crossroads, a PAC founded by Republican strategist Karl Rove. It features an actress saying, “Barbara Bollier seems really nice. She says she’s middle of the road, but her policy positions are just not mine.”
Another ad in Iowa from the Senate Leadership Fund features the same actress.
The ad, which attacks Democratic Senate candidate Theresa Greenfield, who is facing off with incumbent Sen. Joni Ernst in November, shows that actress saying, “Families across Iowa are struggling with this economy, with the pandemic. Keeping our health care is crucial. … But the Theresa Greenfield-Nancy Pelosi health care plan could take away our employer-provided health insurance.”
A third ad, this one in Maine features the actress as well. “We can’t trust [Sen. Susan Collins’s Democratic opponent] Sara Gideon,” she says.
The two political action committees often work closely together, according to the New York Times.
In a separate ad paid for by the Senate Leadership Fund, an actor is shown questioning whether Bollier is “independent.”
That same actor appeared in another ad in Iowa — this time paid for by American Crossroads — giving a misleading representation of Greenfield’s business record. “Seriously?” he says. “Theresa Greenfield literally signed notices to kick Iowa small businesses to the curb, to bring in a big chain store.”
As HuffPost notes, “None of the ads are sanctioned by the Republican campaigns they seek to boost.”
The ads come as no surprise to experts on those races. Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts (R), who is retiring after four terms, noted that the GOP groups appear to be spending millions to help offset Bollier’s record fundraising. According to the Associated Press, those groups have already spent $6 million on ads to aid Marshall’s campaign alone.
“It’s indicative of where we are. He’s getting outspent 3-1,” said Roberts. Marshall and Bollier, both physicians, are vying for his soon-to-be-vacant seat.
Bollier, a retired anesthesiologist, shattered quarterly records when her campaign raised $13.5 million between July and September. To date, she has raised more than $24 million, four times as much as Marshall, who has raised just under $6 million, according to Open Secrets.
The ad spending also comes as Democrats target those same races, infusing them with loads of cash in last-minute ad buys.
As the Associated Press notes, Democratic groups have spent $3.5 million against Collins over the past few weeks, and more than $1 million against Ernst as well, even as GOP groups scramble to dump money into those regions.
Experts from both parties say there are still undecided voters to turn this election.
“It’s a folly to assume these races won’t be competitive right through Election Day,” said J.B. Poersch, president of the Democratic Senate Majority PAC.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-10-27--Watch Obama rip Trump and the GOP for 4 years of failure

President Barack Obama held a rally on Tuesday for Joe Biden in Orlando , Florida , where he called out Donald Trump and congressional Republicans for some of their worst failures of the last four years .
Obama conceded that responding to a pandemic `` would have been challenging for any president , '' but then went on to say , `` This idea that that somehow this White House has done anything but completely screw this thing up is nonsense . ''
Trump should n't have suggested injecting bleach to stop the virus In a televised town hall with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump said there was `` not much '' he would have done differently in responding to the coronavirus outbreak , despite a death toll in the U.S. now over 225,000 .
Referencing the comment , Obama said , `` Really ?
Not much ? ''
and suggested , `` Maybe you should n't have gotten on TV and suggested we might inject bleach to cure COVID ? ''
Republicans have no credibility on protecting preexisting conditions Trump and Republicans running for reelection have tried to claim that they support coverage for preexisting conditions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and repeal the Affordable Care Act , which legally requires coverage of preexisting conditions .
The Trump administration is now fighting in the Supreme Court to throw out the law and the protections that it provides .
`` Republicans love saying , right before an election , how they 're going to protect people who have preexisting conditions .
Have you noticed that ? ''
asked Obama .
`` Well , you know , Joe and I actually protected them 10 years ago with the Affordable Care Act . ''
Biden was infamously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ passage of the Act a `` big fucking deal '' in 2010 .
On Monday , Trump complained that the media spends too much time reporting on COVID-19 , which is damaging to Trump 's campaign .
`` Should be an election law violation ! ''
he tweeted .
`` He said this at one of his rallies , 'COVID , COVID , COVID , ' he 's complaining , '' said Obama .
`` He 's jealous of COVID 's media coverage .
If he had been focused on COVID from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new record highs across the country this week . ''
This week , several aides to Mike Pence tested positive for COVID-19 , marking the second outbreak of the virus at the White House after the Supreme Court `` super spreader '' event .
Noting that he `` lived in the White House for a while , '' President Obama noted that the facility is a `` controlled environment '' but that nonetheless Trump has twice allowed the virus to spread there .
`` You can take some preventative measures to avoid getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seem to do it , '' Obama told supporters .
While praising Biden , Obama also noted he would not `` host super-spreader events at the White House and then take it on a tour all across the country . ''
Obama noted that the economic recovery Trump inherited at the start of his presidency began while he and Biden were in the White House and that while Trump wants credit for the recovery , he wants `` zero blame for the pandemic he ignored . ''
`` The job does n't work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adding that presidents are responsible around the clock for what happens on their watch .
`` Tweeting at the TV does n't fix things , watching TV all day does n't fix things , making stuff up does n't fix things , '' said Obama .
`` You 've got to have a plan if you want to make people 's lives better . ''
Trump did n't build the strong economy he 's trying to run on Trump has frequently claimed that the pre-virus economy was the strongest in American history , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that economy .
`` Donald Trump likes to claim he built this economy .
I just want to remind you that America created 1.5 million more jobs in the last three years of the Obama-Biden administration than in the first 3 years of the Trump-Pence administration , '' said Obama .
`` That 's a fact .
Look it up . ''
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

President Barack Obama held a rally on Tuesday for Joe Biden in Orlando, Florida, where he called out Donald Trump and congressional Republicans for some of their worst failures of the last four years.
Trump’s White House “completely screw[ed] up” responding to COVID-19
Obama conceded that responding to a pandemic “would have been challenging for any president,” but then went on to say, “This idea that that somehow this White House has done anything but completely screw this thing up is nonsense.”
Trump shouldn’t have suggested injecting bleach to stop the virus
In a televised town hall with the pro-Trump Sinclair network of stations, Trump said there was “not much” he would have done differently in responding to the coronavirus outbreak, despite a death toll in the U.S. now over 225,000.
Referencing the comment, Obama said, “Really? Not much?” and suggested, “Maybe you shouldn’t have gotten on TV and suggested we might inject bleach to cure COVID?”
Republicans have no credibility on protecting preexisting conditions
Trump and Republicans running for reelection have tried to claim that they support coverage for preexisting conditions, despite years of trying to undermine and repeal the Affordable Care Act, which legally requires coverage of preexisting conditions. The Trump administration is now fighting in the Supreme Court to throw out the law and the protections that it provides.
“Republicans love saying, right before an election, how they’re going to protect people who have preexisting conditions. Have you noticed that?” asked Obama. “Well, you know, Joe and I actually protected them 10 years ago with the Affordable Care Act.”
Biden was infamously caught on a hot mic calling the passage of the Act a “big fucking deal” in 2010.
Trump is “jealous of COVID’s media coverage’
On Monday, Trump complained that the media spends too much time reporting on COVID-19, which is damaging to Trump’s campaign.
“Should be an election law violation!” he tweeted.
“He said this at one of his rallies, ‘COVID, COVID, COVID,’ he’s complaining,” said Obama. “He’s jealous of COVID’s media coverage. If he had been focused on COVID from the beginning, cases wouldn’t be reaching new record highs across the country this week.”
Trump turned the White House into a COVID hotspot
This week, several aides to Mike Pence tested positive for COVID-19, marking the second outbreak of the virus at the White House after the Supreme Court “super spreader” event.
Noting that he “lived in the White House for a while,” President Obama noted that the facility is a “controlled environment” but that nonetheless Trump has twice allowed the virus to spread there.
“You can take some preventative measures to avoid getting sick, yet this guy can’t seem to do it,” Obama told supporters.
While praising Biden, Obama also noted he would not “host super-spreader events at the White House and then take it on a tour all across the country.”
Trump thinks “tweeting at the TV” fixes things
Obama noted that the economic recovery Trump inherited at the start of his presidency began while he and Biden were in the White House and that while Trump wants credit for the recovery, he wants “zero blame for the pandemic he ignored.”
“The job doesn’t work that way,” Obama said, adding that presidents are responsible around the clock for what happens on their watch.
“Tweeting at the TV doesn’t fix things, watching TV all day doesn’t fix things, making stuff up doesn’t fix things,” said Obama. “You’ve got to have a plan if you want to make people’s lives better.”
Trump didn’t build the strong economy he’s trying to run on
Trump has frequently claimed that the pre-virus economy was the strongest in American history, but does not acknowledge that he inherited that economy.
“Donald Trump likes to claim he built this economy. I just want to remind you that America created 1.5 million more jobs in the last three years of the Obama-Biden administration than in the first 3 years of the Trump-Pence administration,” said Obama. “That’s a fact. Look it up.”
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-10-27--GOP congressman decides it's totally cool to mock Biden for having a stutter

Rep. Mike Kelly ( R-PA ) reportedly mocked Joe Biden 's stutter on a Tuesday Trump campaign conference call and launched an ageist attack on the former vice president .
According to multiple reporters on the call , Kelly affected a fake stutter while quoting Biden .
`` He kind of stumbled : 'We-we-we , we 'll work it out , we 'll work it out , ' '' the five-term congressman said .
`` Let him go ahead and mumble and bumble wherever he wants . ''
`` Drop off some tapioca and let him make his way through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an apparent reference to Biden 's age .
Biden , who is just five years older than Kelly , has been very open about his lifelong efforts to overcome his stutter .
`` It has nothing to do with your intelligence quotient .
It has nothing to do with your intellectual makeup , '' he explained at a CNN town hall earlier this year .
`` You know , stuttering , when you think about it , is the only handicap that people still laugh about .
That still humiliate people about .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ . ''
At the August 2020 Democratic National Convention , self-described 13-year-old `` regular kid '' Brayden Harrington of New Hampshire also recounted how Biden had helped him learn to speak in public , despite also having a stutter .
Neither Kelly nor the Trump campaign immediately responded to requests for comment for this story .
It 's not the first time Kelly 's comments have gotten him into trouble .
At a 2012 press conference , Kelly decried the Affordable Care Act 's birth control mandate , comparing it to the Sept. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor .
`` I want you to remember August 1 , 2012 , the attack on our religious freedom , '' he said .
`` That is a day that will live in infamy , along with those other dates . ''
In 2014 , he likened the Environmental Protection Agency 's regulation of power plant emissions to terrorism , saying , `` You talk about terrorism — you can do it in a lot of different ways .
But you terrorize the people who supply everything this country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep them on the sidelines , my goodness , what have we become ? ''
In early 2017 , Kelly baselessly accused former President Barack Obama of running a secret `` shadow government '' to undermine Donald Trump and `` upset '' his agenda .
In May 2018 , he cited Martin Luther King Jr. to defend the auto industry against loan discrimination charges .
`` The color of a person 's skin has nothing to do , but the content of their character does .
That is Martin Luther King , not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ saying the best way to make the nation great was `` to stop taking about discrimination '' entirely .
He went on to suggest that even acknowledging the existence of racism was un-American .
`` I had 30 minutes of Democrats coming down and talking about how bad automobile people are because they discriminate against nonwhite buyers , '' he told Fox News .
`` I said that ’ s not America .
We don ’ t talk about those things.
” Last July , while defending Trump 's racist attacks on four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that he too is a `` person of color '' because he is `` white '' and `` an Anglo-Saxon . ''
And in December , he again used the Pearl Harbor analogy — this time while railing against Trump 's impeachment .
`` On Dec. 7 , 1941 , a horrific act happened in the United States and it is one that President Roosevelt said this is a date that will live in infamy , '' he told colleagues on the House floor .
`` Today , Dec. 18 , 2019 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infamy . ''
This article was updated to correct the spelling of Kristy Gnibus 's name .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA) reportedly mocked Joe Biden’s stutter on a Tuesday Trump campaign conference call and launched an ageist attack on the former vice president.
According to multiple reporters on the call, Kelly affected a fake stutter while quoting Biden. “He kind of stumbled: ‘We-we-we, we’ll work it out, we’ll work it out,'” the five-term congressman said. “Let him go ahead and mumble and bumble wherever he wants.”
“Drop off some tapioca and let him make his way through that,” he then suggested, an apparent reference to Biden’s age.
Biden, who is just five years older than Kelly, has been very open about his lifelong efforts to overcome his stutter. “It has nothing to do with your intelligence quotient. It has nothing to do with your intellectual makeup,” he explained at a CNN town hall earlier this year. “You know, stuttering, when you think about it, is the only handicap that people still laugh about. That still humiliate people about. And they don’t even mean to.”
At the August 2020 Democratic National Convention, self-described 13-year-old “regular kid” Brayden Harrington of New Hampshire also recounted how Biden had helped him learn to speak in public, despite also having a stutter.
Neither Kelly nor the Trump campaign immediately responded to requests for comment for this story.
It’s not the first time Kelly’s comments have gotten him into trouble.
At a 2012 press conference, Kelly decried the Affordable Care Act’s birth control mandate, comparing it to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor. “I want you to remember August 1, 2012, the attack on our religious freedom,” he said. “That is a day that will live in infamy, along with those other dates.”
In 2014, he likened the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation of power plant emissions to terrorism, saying, “You talk about terrorism — you can do it in a lot of different ways. But you terrorize the people who supply everything this country needs to be great , and you keep them on the sidelines , my goodness, what have we become?”
In early 2017, Kelly baselessly accused former President Barack Obama of running a secret “shadow government” to undermine Donald Trump and “upset” his agenda.
In May 2018, he cited Martin Luther King Jr. to defend the auto industry against loan discrimination charges. “The color of a person’s skin has nothing to do, but the content of their character does. That is Martin Luther King, not me,” he claimed, while saying the best way to make the nation great was “to stop taking about discrimination” entirely.
He went on to suggest that even acknowledging the existence of racism was un-American. “I had 30 minutes of Democrats coming down and talking about how bad automobile people are because they discriminate against nonwhite buyers,” he told Fox News. “I said that’s not America. We don’t talk about those things.”
Last July, while defending Trump’s racist attacks on four Democratic congresswomen of color, Kelly claimed that he too is a “person of color” because he is “white” and “an Anglo-Saxon.”
And in December, he again used the Pearl Harbor analogy — this time while railing against Trump’s impeachment. “On Dec. 7, 1941, a horrific act happened in the United States and it is one that President Roosevelt said this is a date that will live in infamy,” he told colleagues on the House floor. “Today, Dec. 18, 2019, is another date that will live in infamy.”
Kelly faces a potentially close reelection race next week against Democratic public school teacher Kristy Gnibus.
This article was updated to correct the spelling of Kristy Gnibus’s name.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-10-27--White House literally praises Trump for 'ending the COVID-19 pandemic'

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy on Tuesday released its list of Donald Trump 's first-term accomplishments , and leading the list is the bogus claim that Trump ended the COVID-19 pandemic .
`` From the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic , the administration has taken decisive actions to engage scientists and health professionals in academia , industry and government to understand , treat , and defeat the disease , '' the news release says , under the subheadline , `` ending the COVID-19 pandemic . ''
Of course , the pandemic is far from over .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ again trending upward , with an average of 71,092 new virus cases per day — an astronomical number that marks a 40 % percent increase from just two weeks ago , according to the New York Times .
Midwestern and Mountain states are starting to see hospitalizations increase as the virus surges , with some hospitals at risk if overflowing — a phenomenon not seen since the early days of the pandemic , when the virus tore through the Northeast .
Meanwhile , hundreds more continue to die from the virus in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ death toll now over 225,000 .
Trump has routinely ignored public health experts since the earliest stages of the pandemic .
First , he publicly downplayed the risks of the coronavirus despite being told that it was deadly and easily spread .
In fact , Trump admitted in an interview with the Washington Post 's Bob Woodward that he knew the virus was deadly even as he was telling the public otherwise .
Trump also demanded that states begin reopening following lockdowns that were put in place to try to slow the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ experts said cases were still too high and a full reopening would lead to the kind of skyrocketing spread the country is currently experiencing .
Trump has frequently refused to wear a mask and has decided against encouraging the country to do so , even though public health experts say mask-wearing is one of the best ways to slow the spread of the virus until a vaccine is widely available .
On top of all that , Trump has held rallies and events that have spread the virus — including a superspreader event @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Justice Amy Coney Barrett , which may have contributed to an outbreak at the White House that infected Trump himself .
Ultimately , despite the Trump administration 's claim that he 's ended the pandemic , public health experts are warning that the United States is in for a `` dark winter '' — as the government did not take steps to squash the virus before the weather turned cold , forcing people indoors , where the virus spreads quickly .
In the final days of the race , Trump has been loudly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ' spread , claiming it should be illegal for the media to report on it .
That failure to contain the virus is dragging down Trump 's chances at reelection .
Polls show him on pace to lose to Democratic nominee Joe Biden , as voters disapprove of Trump 's handling of the pandemic .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy on Tuesday released its list of Donald Trump’s first-term accomplishments, and leading the list is the bogus claim that Trump ended the COVID-19 pandemic.
“From the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the administration has taken decisive actions to engage scientists and health professionals in academia, industry and government to understand, treat, and defeat the disease,” the news release says, under the subheadline, “ending the COVID-19 pandemic.”
Of course, the pandemic is far from over.
In fact, virus cases are once again trending upward, with an average of 71,092 new virus cases per day — an astronomical number that marks a 40% percent increase from just two weeks ago, according to the New York Times.
Midwestern and Mountain states are starting to see hospitalizations increase as the virus surges, with some hospitals at risk if overflowing — a phenomenon not seen since the early days of the pandemic, when the virus tore through the Northeast.
Meanwhile, hundreds more continue to die from the virus in the United States each day, with the death toll now over 225,000.
Trump has routinely ignored public health experts since the earliest stages of the pandemic.
First, he publicly downplayed the risks of the coronavirus despite being told that it was deadly and easily spread. In fact, Trump admitted in an interview with the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward that he knew the virus was deadly even as he was telling the public otherwise.
Trump also demanded that states begin reopening following lockdowns that were put in place to try to slow the virus’ spread — even though public health experts said cases were still too high and a full reopening would lead to the kind of skyrocketing spread the country is currently experiencing.
Trump has frequently refused to wear a mask and has decided against encouraging the country to do so, even though public health experts say mask-wearing is one of the best ways to slow the spread of the virus until a vaccine is widely available.
On top of all that, Trump has held rallies and events that have spread the virus — including a superspreader event to celebrate the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, which may have contributed to an outbreak at the White House that infected Trump himself.
Ultimately, despite the Trump administration’s claim that he’s ended the pandemic, public health experts are warning that the United States is in for a “dark winter” — as the government did not take steps to squash the virus before the weather turned cold, forcing people indoors, where the virus spreads quickly.
In the final days of the race, Trump has been loudly complaining about media coverage of the virus’ spread, claiming it should be illegal for the media to report on it.
That failure to contain the virus is dragging down Trump’s chances at reelection. Polls show him on pace to lose to Democratic nominee Joe Biden, as voters disapprove of Trump’s handling of the pandemic.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-10-27--Brett Kavanaugh gets a bunch of facts wrong about voting in Wisconsin

The Supreme Court on Monday night ruled that absentee ballots returned by mail in Wisconsin will not be counted if they are received after 8 p.m. on Election Day on Nov. 3 , even if they are postmarked before that date .
The ruling could lead to the disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of voters .
The five conservative justices appointed by Republican presidents voted in the majority .
The dissenting opinion was written by Justice Elena Kagan , joined by Justice Stephen Breyer and Justice Sonia Sotomayor .
Four justices wrote explanations for their reasoning , including Brett Kavanaugh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ errors .
Voters who mail their ballots on time , expecting them to be received by Nov. 3 , are not at fault if the United States Postal Service — which is still experiencing delays after the Donald Trump donor leading the agency made changes that slowed mail delivery — is unable to deliver them on time .
Next , Kavanaugh argued that allowing ballots to be counted if they are postmarked on time but received after Election Day could prevent states from declaring winners on election night : This is a misrepresentation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do not declare winners on election night .
Not a single state in the entire country has a final count by 11:59 p.m. on Election Day .
Delaware , which finalizes its vote count the earliest , does so two days after the election .
Most states wait weeks to issue a certified vote total , including a number of states that do n't certify their vote counts until early December .
`` What he was saying ... was that late-arriving ballots could create a situation where one candidate could be ahead and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which Justice Kagan replied , there is no flipping — it just takes time to count the ballots , '' Rick Hasen , an elections law expert and professor of law and political science at the University of California , Irvine , told NPR on Tuesday .
`` The reality is that we never know an official winner on election night , and it often takes many days , even if the deadline is election night , for all the ballots to be counted , especially in a close race . ''
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election night are media outlets .
The calls are not official declarations by states .
What 's more , Wisconsin state law mandates that all ballots , including absentee ballots , not be counted until after voting is complete on Election Day , making it impossible for a final tally of balloting to be completed on election night .
`` The notion the WI legislature set this ballot receipt deadline 'to be able to definitively announce the results of the election on election night ' is nonsense , '' Daniel Jacobson , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama 's White House , tweeted .
`` The WI leg has refused to let ballots be processed before e-day , guaranteeing results wo n't be known on election night . ''
In arguing , `` This Court has repeatedly emphasized that federal courts ordinarily should not alter state election laws in the period close to an election—a principle often referred to as the Purcell principle .
...
The Court 's precedents recognize a basic tenet of election law : When an election is close at hand , the rules of the road @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kavanaugh incorrectly cited Vermont as a state that this election year , despite the pandemic , `` decided not to make changes to their ordinary election rules , including to the election-day deadline for receipt of absentee ballots . ''
Vermont did change its laws this cycle to expand voting by mail due to the COVID-19 pandemic .
Ultimately , the Supreme Court 's ruling in Democratic National Committee v. Wisconsin State Legislature could result in tens of thousands of ballots not being counted in the critical swing state .
In the Wisconsin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Election Day but received later were counted .
In the 2016 election , Donald Trump carried the state by just 22,748 votes .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

The Supreme Court on Monday night ruled that absentee ballots returned by mail in Wisconsin will not be counted if they are received after 8 p.m. on Election Day on Nov. 3, even if they are postmarked before that date. The ruling could lead to the disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of voters.
The five conservative justices appointed by Republican presidents voted in the majority. The dissenting opinion was written by Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justice Stephen Breyer and Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
Four justices wrote explanations for their reasoning, including Brett Kavanaugh, whose concurring opinion was full of errors.
For example, Kavanaugh wrote:
To state the obvious, a State cannot conduct an election without deadlines. It follows that the right to vote is not substantially burdened by a requirement that voters “act in a timely fashion if they wish to express their views in the voting booth.” … Voters who, for example, show up to vote at midnight after the polls close on election night do not have a right to demand that the State nonetheless count their votes. Voters who submit their absentee ballots after the State’s deadline similarly do not have a right to demand that the State count their votes.
Voters who mail their ballots on time, expecting them to be received by Nov. 3, are not at fault if the United States Postal Service — which is still experiencing delays after the Donald Trump donor leading the agency made changes that slowed mail delivery — is unable to deliver them on time.
Next, Kavanaugh argued that allowing ballots to be counted if they are postmarked on time but received after Election Day could prevent states from declaring winners on election night:
Those States want to avoid the chaos and suspicions of impropriety that can ensue if thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election. And those States also want to be able to definitively announce the results of the election on election night, or as soon as possible thereafter.
This is a misrepresentation of how elections are conducted.
States do not declare winners on election night. Not a single state in the entire country has a final count by 11:59 p.m. on Election Day. Delaware, which finalizes its vote count the earliest, does so two days after the election.
Most states wait weeks to issue a certified vote total, including a number of states that don’t certify their vote counts until early December.
“What he was saying … was that late-arriving ballots could create a situation where one candidate could be ahead and then the results could flip, to which Justice Kagan replied, there is no flipping — it just takes time to count the ballots,” Rick Hasen, an elections law expert and professor of law and political science at the University of California, Irvine, told NPR on Tuesday. “The reality is that we never know an official winner on election night, and it often takes many days, even if the deadline is election night, for all the ballots to be counted, especially in a close race.”
The organizations that call winners in races on election night are media outlets. The calls are not official declarations by states.
What’s more, Wisconsin state law mandates that all ballots, including absentee ballots, not be counted until after voting is complete on Election Day, making it impossible for a final tally of balloting to be completed on election night.
“The notion the WI legislature set this ballot receipt deadline ‘to be able to definitively announce the results of the election on election night’ is nonsense,” Daniel Jacobson, a lawyer who worked in former President Barack Obama’s White House, tweeted. “The WI leg has refused to let ballots be processed before e-day, guaranteeing results won’t be known on election night.”
In arguing, “This Court has repeatedly emphasized that federal courts ordinarily should not alter state election laws in the period close to an election—a principle often referred to as the Purcell principle. … The Court’s precedents recognize a basic tenet of election law: When an election is close at hand, the rules of the road should be clear and settled,” Kavanaugh incorrectly cited Vermont as a state that this election year, despite the pandemic, “decided not to make changes to their ordinary election rules, including to the election-day deadline for receipt of absentee ballots.”
That is simply false.
Vermont did change its laws this cycle to expand voting by mail due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Democratic National Committee v. Wisconsin State Legislature could result in tens of thousands of ballots not being counted in the critical swing state.
In the Wisconsin primary, 80,000 ballots that were postmarked by Election Day but received later were counted.
In the 2016 election, Donald Trump carried the state by just 22,748 votes.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-10-27--Republicans ask the Supreme Court to make sure votes aren't counted in swing states

Republicans are once again petitioning the Supreme Court to rule against mail-in voting .
The GOP has zeroed in on Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in efforts to effectively disenfranchise mail-in voters in two battleground states .
Both states have recently been at the center of Supreme Court rulings involving extensions for mail-in ballots .
Now , Republicans are asking the Supreme Court to reconsider a Pennsylvania mail-in voting case — one that saw the court narrowly ruled against the GOP last week .
In that case , the Supreme Court upheld a lower court 's decision to allow a mail-in voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Under this ruling , Pennsylvania mail-in ballots could be counted if received up to three days after Election Day .
But , emboldened by the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the court this week , Pennsylvania Republicans filed documents Friday imploring that the case be reconsidered on the merits .
Other contentious battles between Republicans and Democrats about mail-in voting continue .
The Supreme Court declined on Monday to resurrect a lower court ruling that would have extended mail-in voting deadline extensions in Wisconsin .
In the majority decision on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote that `` a single deadline supplies clear notice '' and that `` requiring ballots be in by Election Day puts all voters on the same footing . ''
Justice Elena Kagan noted in her dissenting opinion that many Wisconsin voters `` would not even receive mail ballots by Election Day . ''
If the deadline extension were not granted , she said , it would disenfranchise up to 100,000 voters who had properly requested their ballots in a timely fashion .
`` In the court 's view , '' Kagan wrote , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cast ballots would severely burden the constitutional right to vote . ''
She added that when confronting `` unprecedented administrative and delivery delays , '' the six-day `` grace period '' for mail-in ballots to arrive was entirely reasonable .
`` The Court 's decision will disenfranchise large numbers of responsible voters in the midst of hazardous pandemic conditions , '' Kagan added .
As a result of that decision , Democrats have begun to implement a `` huge voter education campaign '' in the state , according to Ben Wikler , Wisconsin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is reminding voters that the U.S .
Postal Service 's official recommendation is that mail-in ballots be sent by Oct. 27 .
The data shows that voting by mail has given Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden a significant lead , leaving Donald Trump to rely on in-person GOP voters on Election Day in order to close the gap .
And the GOP has an incentive to disenfranchise mail-in voters : This year , 65 % of Democratic voters said they would vote by mail , while only 35 % of Republicans will .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ rests heavily on swing states , like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania .
According to NBC , Trump won Wisconsin by only 23,000 votes in 2016 , and the majority of the recent presidential elections have been a tight race in the state .
And Pennsylvania is always a wild card during election years , a state politically divided down the middle .
Its 20 electoral votes have been the deciding ones in 20 out of 25 presidential elections , according to USA Today .
It 's apparent that Republicans need to win Pennsylvania by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ takes all .
As of last month , FiveThirtyEight 's model gave Pennsylvania a 31 % chance of deciding the election and Biden a 96 % chance of winning the election if he takes Pennsylvania .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Republicans are once again petitioning the Supreme Court to rule against mail-in voting.
The GOP has zeroed in on Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in efforts to effectively disenfranchise mail-in voters in two battleground states. Both states have recently been at the center of Supreme Court rulings involving extensions for mail-in ballots.
Now, Republicans are asking the Supreme Court to reconsider a Pennsylvania mail-in voting case — one that saw the court narrowly ruled against the GOP last week.
In that case, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s decision to allow a mail-in voting extension to stand with a 4-4 vote. Under this ruling, Pennsylvania mail-in ballots could be counted if received up to three days after Election Day.
But, emboldened by the addition of Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the court this week, Pennsylvania Republicans filed documents Friday imploring that the case be reconsidered on the merits.
Other contentious battles between Republicans and Democrats about mail-in voting continue.
The Supreme Court declined on Monday to resurrect a lower court ruling that would have extended mail-in voting deadline extensions in Wisconsin.
In the majority decision on the Wisconsin case, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that “a single deadline supplies clear notice” and that “requiring ballots be in by Election Day puts all voters on the same footing.”
Justice Elena Kagan noted in her dissenting opinion that many Wisconsin voters “would not even receive mail ballots by Election Day.” If the deadline extension were not granted, she said, it would disenfranchise up to 100,000 voters who had properly requested their ballots in a timely fashion.
“In the court’s view,” Kagan wrote, “the discarding of so many properly cast ballots would severely burden the constitutional right to vote.”
She added that when confronting “unprecedented administrative and delivery delays,” the six-day “grace period” for mail-in ballots to arrive was entirely reasonable.
“The Court’s decision will disenfranchise large numbers of responsible voters in the midst of hazardous pandemic conditions,” Kagan added.
As a result of that decision, Democrats have begun to implement a “huge voter education campaign” in the state, according to Ben Wikler, Wisconsin’s Democratic Party chair. The party is reminding voters that the U.S. Postal Service’s official recommendation is that mail-in ballots be sent by Oct. 27.
The data shows that voting by mail has given Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden a significant lead, leaving Donald Trump to rely on in-person GOP voters on Election Day in order to close the gap.
And the GOP has an incentive to disenfranchise mail-in voters: This year, 65% of Democratic voters said they would vote by mail, while only 35% of Republicans will.
Moreover, the fate of the election rests heavily on swing states, like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.
According to NBC, Trump won Wisconsin by only 23,000 votes in 2016, and the majority of the recent presidential elections have been a tight race in the state.
And Pennsylvania is always a wild card during election years, a state politically divided down the middle.
Its 20 electoral votes have been the deciding ones in 20 out of 25 presidential elections, according to USA Today.
It’s apparent that Republicans need to win Pennsylvania by hook or by crook, since winner takes all.
As of last month, FiveThirtyEight’s model gave Pennsylvania a 31% chance of deciding the election and Biden a 96% chance of winning the election if he takes Pennsylvania.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-10-27--Trump says a 'Red Wave' is coming. Too bad the polls say something else.

Donald Trump predicted on Tuesday that a `` Great Red Wave '' was coming in next Tuesday 's elections .
But polls suggest he may be even more wrong than when he made the same prediction two years ago .
In a morning tweet , Trump mocked rival Joe Biden for having smaller crowds at his socially distant campaign events than the crowds at Trump 's own superspreader rallies .
`` Obama is drawing VERY small ( tiny ) numbers of people , '' he bragged , referencing an event a week earlier at which his predecessor was present .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We are drawing tens of thousands of people . ''
He added , `` You 'll see that again today .
The Great Red Wave is coming !
!
! ''
Trump has been making similar claims for weeks , promising a `` giant '' and `` massive '' Republican sweep in the November election .
Last week , he predicted that his party would even regain a majority in the House of Representatives — an outcome that even House Republican leaders believe is unlikely .
If the term `` red wave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump made the exact same prediction in 2018 .
`` Republicans should stop wasting their time on Immigration until after we elect more Senators and Congressmen/women in November , '' he tweeted in June of that year .
`` Dems are just playing games , have no intention of doing anything to solves [ sic ] this decades old problem .
We can pass great legislation after the Red Wave ! ''
That did not happen .
Instead , Democrats gained 41 seats and control of the House of Representatives , making Rep. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speaker once again .
To regain a majority next month , Republicans would need to win back at least 15 Democratic seats .
Forecasters predict that they will in fact lose ground .
Democrats are also expected to gain seats in the Senate , where Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has conceded his odds of keeping a Republican majority are about `` 50-50 . ''
Democrats have massively outraised Republicans in recent weeks in key races .
Polling averages show Democrats poised to win both chambers .
And the most vulnerable Republican of all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national and swing-state polls showing a large Biden lead , Trump may find his 2020 predictions as wrong as his 2018 prognostications .
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation .

Donald Trump predicted on Tuesday that a “Great Red Wave” was coming in next Tuesday’s elections. But polls suggest he may be even more wrong than when he made the same prediction two years ago.
In a morning tweet, Trump mocked rival Joe Biden for having smaller crowds at his socially distant campaign events than the crowds at Trump’s own superspreader rallies.
“Obama is drawing VERY small (tiny) numbers of people,” he bragged, referencing an event a week earlier at which his predecessor was present. “Biden is drawing almost no one. We are drawing tens of thousands of people.”
He added, “You’ll see that again today. The Great Red Wave is coming!!!”
Trump has been making similar claims for weeks, promising a “giant” and “massive” Republican sweep in the November election. Last week, he predicted that his party would even regain a majority in the House of Representatives — an outcome that even House Republican leaders believe is unlikely.
If the term “red wave” sounds familiar, it’s because Trump made the exact same prediction in 2018.
“Republicans should stop wasting their time on Immigration until after we elect more Senators and Congressmen/women in November,” he tweeted in June of that year. “Dems are just playing games, have no intention of doing anything to solves [sic] this decades old problem. We can pass great legislation after the Red Wave!”
That did not happen. Instead, Democrats gained 41 seats and control of the House of Representatives, making Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) the House speaker once again. To regain a majority next month, Republicans would need to win back at least 15 Democratic seats. Forecasters predict that they will in fact lose ground.
Democrats are also expected to gain seats in the Senate, where Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has conceded his odds of keeping a Republican majority are about “50-50.”
Democrats have massively outraised Republicans in recent weeks in key races. Polling averages show Democrats poised to win both chambers.
And the most vulnerable Republican of all appears to be Trump himself. With national and swing-state polls showing a large Biden lead, Trump may find his 2020 predictions as wrong as his 2018 prognostications.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


Cartoon: Scary Amy

Clay Jones is a nationally syndicated political cartoonist .
He has worked for the Honolulu Star-Bulletin and The Free Lance-Star @ @ @ @ @ draws a weekly cartoon for CNN Opinion .
He lives in the Washington suburbs of @ @ @

A decade after Sandy Hook, grief remains but hope grows
December, the anniversary of the worst grade school mass shooting in the U.S. is a difficult month for many in Newton. But in the face of heartbreak and grief, some survivors and families of victims feel hope for a brighter future.
By Associated Press - December 22, 2022


shareblue--2020-10-28--McSally smears her opponent for caring about gun control after his wife was shot

Sen. Martha McSally ( R-AZ ) on Wednesday used an op-ed for Fox News to attack her Democratic opponent for the Senate , Mark Kelly , for his work in establishing `` one of the most sophisticated political organizations in the country , aimed squarely at infringing on our Second Amendment rights . ''
The organization , unnamed by McSally in the article , is called Giffords , after its founder and Kelly 's wife , former Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords , who survived an assassination attempt in 2011 .
Kelly and Giffords founded the organization , which works against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the head at an event near Tucson , and , more immediately , after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown , Connecticut at the end of 2012 .
It 's the second time McSally has tried to make Kelly 's involvement with the gun control organization an issue in her bid to serve out the remainder of the late Sen. John McCain 's term .
At a debate earlier this month , McSally brought up Kelly 's work for the group , but was coy about mentioning its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ `` radical political organization '' with ties to the `` extreme left , '' according to the Arizona Republic .
When moderators asked her to clarify what group she was talking about , McSally said , `` I think he knows . ''
Kelly fired back : `` Gabby was injured , shot in the head , in 2011 .
The issue of gun violence is personal for Gabby and me , and I 'll never forget what she went through for that year and a half .
In the hospital for six @ @ @ @ @ @ @ … So we formed an organization to try to make communities , and help communities become safer from gun violence . ''
McSally lost a Senate bid in 2018 to replace retiring Sen. Jeff Flake .
However , she was appointed by Arizona 's Republican governor to McCain 's seat after he died — despite the fact that Arizonans had just rejected her candidacy .
And she 's struggled to gain traction in her effort to win the Senate seat she now holds .
McSally has led in just one public poll since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kelly by 4.4 points , according to RealClearPolitics ' polling average .
McSally has also struggled to explain her support for Donald Trump , who polls show is also losing in the state .
At a debate in early October , McSally refused to say whether she 's proud to support Trump .
Nonpartisan political handicappers say McSally is an underdog in the contest , with Inside Elections rating the race `` tilt Democratic '' and FiveThirtyEight giving McSally just a 21 % chance of winning .
Published with permission of The American @ @ @

Sen. Martha McSally (R-AZ) on Wednesday used an op-ed for Fox News to attack her Democratic opponent for the Senate, Mark Kelly, for his work in establishing “one of the most sophisticated political organizations in the country, aimed squarely at infringing on our Second Amendment rights.”
The organization, unnamed by McSally in the article, is called Giffords, after its founder and Kelly’s wife, former Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who survived an assassination attempt in 2011. Kelly and Giffords founded the organization, which works against gun violence, after she was shot in the head at an event near Tucson, and, more immediately, after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut at the end of 2012.
It’s the second time McSally has tried to make Kelly’s involvement with the gun control organization an issue in her bid to serve out the remainder of the late Sen. John McCain’s term.
At a debate earlier this month, McSally brought up Kelly’s work for the group, but was coy about mentioning its’ name. McSally called Giffords a “radical political organization” with ties to the “extreme left,” according to the Arizona Republic.
When moderators asked her to clarify what group she was talking about, McSally said, “I think he knows.”
Kelly fired back: “Gabby was injured, shot in the head, in 2011. The issue of gun violence is personal for Gabby and me, and I’ll never forget what she went through for that year and a half. In the hospital for six months, a year of significant rehab … So we formed an organization to try to make communities, and help communities become safer from gun violence.”
McSally lost a Senate bid in 2018 to replace retiring Sen. Jeff Flake. However, she was appointed by Arizona’s Republican governor to McCain’s seat after he died — despite the fact that Arizonans had just rejected her candidacy.
And she’s struggled to gain traction in her effort to win the Senate seat she now holds.
McSally has led in just one public poll since July, and is currently losing to Kelly by 4.4 points, according to RealClearPolitics’ polling average.
McSally has also struggled to explain her support for Donald Trump, who polls show is also losing in the state.
At a debate in early October, McSally refused to say whether she’s proud to support Trump.
Nonpartisan political handicappers say McSally is an underdog in the contest, with Inside Elections rating the race “tilt Democratic” and FiveThirtyEight giving McSally just a 21% chance of winning.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.


shareblue--2020-10-28--Mississippi wastes no time handing new Supreme Court a chance to ban abortion

Just a few days before Justice Amy Coney Barrett was sworn in , Mississippi yet again urged the Supreme Court to take up its 15-week abortion ban .
It would be a perfect vehicle for the court to continue to undermine the right to choose now that there is a solid anti-abortion majority on the bench .
And now , with the court 's announcement that they 'll consider the case at its next conference , it looks like Barrett could hear her first abortion case — one that could genuinely undo Roe v. Wade — just a few months @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been up at the court since March of this year , and anti-choice activists and legislators have filed numerous briefs requesting the court hear the case .
At first glance , it looks like dozens of other anti-abortion cases from conservative states .
In March 2018 , the state passed a highly restrictive 15-week ban , at that time the earliest in the country .
The state already had a 20-week ban on the books .
Almost immediately , the law was temporarily blocked , with a permanent injunction being issued in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should have been a simple issue , as a 15-week ban is well before a pregnancy becomes viable .
The cornerstone of Roe is that the government may not bar someone from obtaining an abortion prior to viability .
Over time , much of the court 's analysis has shifted to restrictions rather than bans — whether the law presents an undue burden .
Four years ago , in Whole Women 's Health v. Hellerstedt , the Supreme Court reaffirmed that laws that place a `` substantial obstacle '' in the way of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is viable is unconstitutional .
Medical professionals place viability well after 15 weeks .
Hal Lawrence , the executive vice president of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists , said , `` There 's no evidence of a 20-week fetus surviving , even with intensive medical care . ''
Instead , viability is more often said to be at the 24- to 28-week range .
With that , there should be no rational reason for the court to take the Mississippi case , as pre-viability bans are unconstitutional .
But Mississippi is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the viability standard altogether .
Chief Justice John Roberts is partially responsible for this turn of events .
In the court 's most recent abortion case , June Medical Services v. Russo , Roberts concurred with the majority on very narrow grounds .
The liberal wing of the court held that Louisiana 's admitting privileges law imposed an undue burden on someone seeking an abortion .
Roberts concurred , but only to agree that the holding in Whole Women 's Health , which dealt with an identical admitting privileges law in Texas , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Roberts took the opportunity to list all of the other types of burdens he would find perfectly acceptable , including mandatory waiting periods , parental consent laws , and requiring so-called `` counseling . ''
His only real objection to Louisiana 's law was that it was identical to the Texas law in Whole Women 's Health .
With such a framing , Roberts implicitly asked litigants to bring the court a different case with a restriction less identical to those the court has already struck down .
However , the burdens discussed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in both June Medical and Whole Women 's Health are regulations , not bans .
They do n't purport to bar people from getting abortions entirely .
Rather , they are there to make abortions hard to obtain without going so far as to ban them .
Rewire News pointed out that what Mississippi seems to be doing is apply the logic of analyzing regulations — how hard does this regulation make it for people to get an abortion ?
— and grafting it onto the entirely different situation of a complete ban @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harder to get abortions — they make them illegal .
And Mississippi proposes to do so well before a pregnancy could possibly be considered viable .
With that , the state is asking the court to depart sharply from Roe and to examine whether pre-viability bans can be considered constitutional .
Only four justices need to vote to hear a case .
Even if Roberts were to decline to hear the case , today , the court has five Justices — Clarence Thomas , Samuel Alito , Neil Gorsuch , Brett Kavanaugh , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a near-complete antipathy to abortion rights .
Three of those justices were appointed by Trump , who specifically said he would only appoint justices who would overrule Roe .
And , as CBS News noted , if the court does n't see this case as a good vehicle to undermine or overturn Roe , there are 17 more cases currently in the pipeline at the federal appellate courts .
The conservative anti-abortion majority on the court will have ample opportunity to abolish abortion , be it incrementally or all at once .
Published @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Just a few days before Justice Amy Coney Barrett was sworn in, Mississippi yet again urged the Supreme Court to take up its 15-week abortion ban. It would be a perfect vehicle for the court to continue to undermine the right to choose now that there is a solid anti-abortion majority on the bench.
And now, with the court’s announcement that they’ll consider the case at its next conference, it looks like Barrett could hear her first abortion case — one that could genuinely undo Roe v. Wade — just a few months after taking the bench.
The case has been up at the court since March of this year, and anti-choice activists and legislators have filed numerous briefs requesting the court hear the case. At first glance, it looks like dozens of other anti-abortion cases from conservative states. In March 2018, the state passed a highly restrictive 15-week ban, at that time the earliest in the country. The state already had a 20-week ban on the books.
Almost immediately, the law was temporarily blocked, with a permanent injunction being issued in late 2018. Disposing of the case should have been a simple issue, as a 15-week ban is well before a pregnancy becomes viable. The cornerstone of Roe is that the government may not bar someone from obtaining an abortion prior to viability.
Over time, much of the court’s analysis has shifted to restrictions rather than bans — whether the law presents an undue burden. Four years ago, in Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that laws that place a “substantial obstacle” in the way of people seeking an abortion before a pregnancy is viable is unconstitutional.
Medical professionals place viability well after 15 weeks. Hal Lawrence, the executive vice president of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said, “There’s no evidence of a 20-week fetus surviving, even with intensive medical care.” Instead, viability is more often said to be at the 24- to 28-week range.
With that, there should be no rational reason for the court to take the Mississippi case, as pre-viability bans are unconstitutional. But Mississippi is explicitly urging the court to throw out the viability standard altogether.
Chief Justice John Roberts is partially responsible for this turn of events. In the court’s most recent abortion case, June Medical Services v. Russo, Roberts concurred with the majority on very narrow grounds. The liberal wing of the court held that Louisiana’s admitting privileges law imposed an undue burden on someone seeking an abortion. Roberts concurred, but only to agree that the holding in Whole Women’s Health, which dealt with an identical admitting privileges law in Texas, controlled in June Medical as well.
Roberts took the opportunity to list all of the other types of burdens he would find perfectly acceptable, including mandatory waiting periods, parental consent laws, and requiring so-called “counseling.” His only real objection to Louisiana’s law was that it was identical to the Texas law in Whole Women’s Health. With such a framing, Roberts implicitly asked litigants to bring the court a different case with a restriction less identical to those the court has already struck down.
However, the burdens discussed by Roberts and the burden at issue in both June Medical and Whole Women’s Health are regulations, not bans. They don’t purport to bar people from getting abortions entirely. Rather, they are there to make abortions hard to obtain without going so far as to ban them.
Rewire News pointed out that what Mississippi seems to be doing is apply the logic of analyzing regulations — how hard does this regulation make it for people to get an abortion? — and grafting it onto the entirely different situation of a complete ban.
But bans don’t make it harder to get abortions — they make them illegal. And Mississippi proposes to do so well before a pregnancy could possibly be considered viable. With that, the state is asking the court to depart sharply from Roe and to examine whether pre-viability bans can be considered constitutional.
Only four justices need to vote to hear a case. Even if Roberts were to decline to hear the case, today, the court has five Justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and now Barrett — who have demonstrated a near-complete antipathy to abortion rights. Three of those justices were appointed by Trump, who specifically said he would only appoint justices who would overrule Roe.
And, as CBS News noted, if the court doesn’t see this case as a good vehicle to undermine or overturn Roe, there are 17 more cases currently in the pipeline at the federal appellate courts. The conservative anti-abortion majority on the court will have ample opportunity to abolish abortion, be it incrementally or all at once.
Published with permission of The American Independent Foundation.