buzzfeed--2020-03-04--The Supreme Court Just Heard Its First Major Abortion Case With Trump's Appointees On The Bench

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday morning in the first major case on abortion rights since President Donald Trump appointed two justices to the court , a case that could threaten the national right to the procedure .
As hundreds of protesters gathered on the steps of the Supreme Court , making speeches and yelling pro– and anti–abortion rights slogans at each other , the justices questioned attorneys in the case and focused their questions on precedent and whether laws like the one they are considering should be determined on a state-by-state basis or nationwide .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abortions in Louisana should be required to have hospital admitting privileges , a requirement that would likely leave only one doctor able to legally perform the procedure in the state .
The case also looks more broadly at whether doctors have the ability to file the lawsuit on behalf of their patients .
The Louisiana law is nearly identical to one in Texas that the Supreme Court overturned in 2016 , a decision that was a major win for abortion rights and helped increase access to the procedure in several states .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that precedent applies here , or whether making a different decision in Louisiana would overturn the court ’ s prior decisions .
“ This case is about respect for the court ’ s precedent , ” Julie Rikelman , an attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights who was arguing against the Louisiana law , said at the very start of the hearing Wednesday .
“ Nothing has changed that would justify this legal about-face.
” During the arguments , the court appeared divided .
Chief Justice John Roberts — who is expected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked the attorneys on both sides of the case repeatedly about whether the court should undertake a state-by-state review , depending on different facts in each state , when examining a law ’ s restrictions .
Justice Brett Kavanaugh , who was hearing a major abortion case for the first time in his tenure on the Supreme Court on Wednesday , asked similar questions .
Neither justice indicated whether they had made up their minds , but their questioning suggested that the idea of overturning precedent and how broadly it applies will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s decision .
The four liberal justices spent much of their time highlighting the precedent the Supreme Court has already set on the issue and questioning attorneys about whether the Louisiana law was actually intended to make abortion safer , or if it was simply passed to make it less accessible .
Kavanaugh ’ s fellow Trump appointee , Neil Gorsuch , and conservative Justice Clarence Thomas both stayed silent throughout the oral arguments .
The Supreme Court will likely not issue its opinion in the case , called June Medical Services v. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Louisiana law passed in 2014 , and abortion clinics in the state sued over it .
Two years later , in Whole Woman ’ s Health v. Hellerstedt , the Supreme Court struck down the similar law in Texas , which had already gone into effect and caused half of the state ’ s clinics to close .
In the wake of Justice Antonin Scalia ’ s death , the 2016 vote was 5–3 with Roberts dissenting .
Justice Anthony Kennedy , who has since retired , agreed with the court ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Though the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the health of pregnant people , there was no evidence that admitting privileges actually did anything to help them .
Further , there was clear evidence that it made abortion much less accessible .
The 2016 decision reaffirmed the idea that it is unconstitutional to place an “ undue burden ” on access to abortion , a benchmark used by the Supreme Court in every case examining abortion regulations since it was established in the landmark 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ procedure .
In that case , the court also denied a review of admitting privilege laws in Wisconsin and Mississippi , allowing the laws to be struck down by lower courts .
Like those laws , Louisiana ’ s was modeled on the Texas law overturned in Whole Woman ’ s Health .
A district court found the Louisiana law unconstitutional , stating that , if implemented , it would close two of just three abortion clinics in Louisiana , leaving one doctor who could perform abortions .
Then in 2018 , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit reversed this decision , letting the law stand .
The plaintiffs in the case rushed it to the Supreme Court to request an emergency stay to prevent the law from going into effect in Louisiana .
The stay was granted , and the court agreed to take up the case .
Roberts , despite having opposed striking down the Texas law , sided with the liberal justices to grant the stay .
In its narrowest interpretation , the Supreme Court is looking at whether the 5th @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law stand .
In a broader sense , the court is looking at whether Whole Woman ’ s Health was correctly decided and whether it applies to the entire country .
After the Supreme Court took up the petition , Louisiana ’ s legal team requested a new question be added to the case : whether June Medical Services and its doctors have the ability to challenge the law on behalf of their patients .
This point , called the “ third-party standing ” question , is a legally complex one that could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of abortion .
Justice Thomas brought it up the issue in his dissent to Whole Woman ’ s Health and anti-abortion advocates have been pushing it for years .
Typically , third parties are not legally allowed to file lawsuits on behalf of other people , but exceptions are made in cases where the plaintiffs have a “ close relationship ” with the damaged parties , as past Supreme Court cases have put it .
The Center for Reproductive Rights argues that this clearly applies to this case because a ) the drawn-out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone who is pregnant from legally getting the procedure done , and b ) there is an extensive precedent of abortion doctors being able to sue on behalf of their patients .
This is how the majority of cases challenging laws restricting abortion are filed .
Louisiana argued that this “ close relationship ” standard should not apply to abortion doctors because those doctors usually do not see a single patient more than a couple of times , and because there is a conflict of interest for doctors who are being regulated by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to protect patients from unqualified doctors , Louisiana ’ s solicitor general , Elizabeth Murrill , argued in the Supreme Court on Wednesday , letting the doctors sue on the behalf of the people the law is protecting is contrary to that goal .
Justice Stephen Breyer , who wrote the opinion striking down Texas ’ s admitting privileges law in Whole Woman ’ s Health , asked the attorneys questions Wednesday that served to emphasize the importance of precedent in this case .
“ How many abortion cases have allowed ” third @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patients in the Supreme Court , Breyer asked Rikelman .
“ I counted eight , ” he said .
She agreed .
So we would have to overrule eight prior cases ?
He asked .
Rikelman responded that yes , she believes they would .
Later he asked Jeffery Wall , an attorney with the US Department of Justice who was arguing on behalf of Louisiana , whether he was suggesting that the Supreme Court should overturn precedent that goes back to the 1800s .
Wall , sputtering slightly , denied this .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 40 years then , ” Breyer retorted , likely referring to Roe v. Wade .
The Louisiana law , called the Louisiana Unsafe Abortion Protection Act , required doctors to have admitting privileges at hospitals within 30 miles of the facility .
This means the doctor must be a member of the hospital ’ s staff and have a granted ability to admit and diagnose patients .
Liberal justices Elena Kagan , Sonia Sotomayor , and Ruth Bader Ginsburg spent most of their questions focused on the true intent of the law — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was to make sure patients seeking abortions were safe in the case of emergency , were true .
Ginsburg , especially , focused her questions on the necessity of the law .
She asked Murrill , “ Do you dispute that first-trimester abortion ” is one of the safest medical procedures there is , “ even safer than childbirth ?
” Murill did not give a direct answer .
Ginsburg asserted that , in the vast majority of cases in which someone requires hospitalization after an abortion , it is during a medication @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She asked Murill and Wall : If this were the case , wouldn ’ t it make more sense for them to go to a hospital near their home , rather than one within 30 miles of the abortion clinic as the Louisiana law requires ?
Wall conceded that the majority of complications happen once the patient is at home , but sometimes they happen at the clinic .
Of the conservative justices on the court , Justice Samuel Alito challenged Rikelman the most , asking her about whether there was a conflict @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suit .
Rikelman denied this .
Alito also asked how hard the doctors actually tried to get admitting privileges .
Kavanaugh and Roberts seemed to have similar concerns about the case .
Kavanaugh asked Rikelman repeatedly whether she thought all admitting privilege laws were unconstitutional , even in states where doctors could easily access admitting privileges .
She answered that essentially , yes .
Roberts asked a similar question , whether the law should be considered on a state-by-state basis depending on how much it limits access and other facts , or whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Whole Woman ’ s Health was widely interpreted to be .
The attorneys arguing on behalf of Louisiana responded that they thought it was a state-by-state consideration ; in the case of Louisiana , the law 's benefits outweighed its cost .
On the steps of the Supreme Court after the hearing , attorneys for the Center for Reproductive Rights both told BuzzFeed News they were hopeful — Rikelman used the term “ cautiously optimistic , ” and her fellow attorney T.J. Tu , who did not argue in the hearing , said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ m feeling great , ” Tu said , adding that he was encouraged by the questions from Roberts and Kavanaugh .
“ We have always argued the case that there should be a broad majority on the court to recognize that there is no difference between this case and the case the Supreme Court decided only four years ago , and it seems like that ’ s true .
”

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday morning in the first major case on abortion rights since President Donald Trump appointed two justices to the court, a case that could threaten the national right to the procedure.
As hundreds of protesters gathered on the steps of the Supreme Court, making speeches and yelling pro– and anti–abortion rights slogans at each other, the justices questioned attorneys in the case and focused their questions on precedent and whether laws like the one they are considering should be determined on a state-by-state basis or nationwide.
The case at issue examines whether doctors performing abortions in Louisana should be required to have hospital admitting privileges, a requirement that would likely leave only one doctor able to legally perform the procedure in the state. The case also looks more broadly at whether doctors have the ability to file the lawsuit on behalf of their patients.
The Louisiana law is nearly identical to one in Texas that the Supreme Court overturned in 2016, a decision that was a major win for abortion rights and helped increase access to the procedure in several states. The main issue at hand Wednesday was whether that precedent applies here, or whether making a different decision in Louisiana would overturn the court’s prior decisions.
“This case is about respect for the court’s precedent,” Julie Rikelman, an attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights who was arguing against the Louisiana law, said at the very start of the hearing Wednesday. “Nothing has changed that would justify this legal about-face.”
During the arguments, the court appeared divided. Chief Justice John Roberts — who is expected to be the decisive swing vote — asked the attorneys on both sides of the case repeatedly about whether the court should undertake a state-by-state review, depending on different facts in each state, when examining a law’s restrictions.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was hearing a major abortion case for the first time in his tenure on the Supreme Court on Wednesday, asked similar questions. Neither justice indicated whether they had made up their minds, but their questioning suggested that the idea of overturning precedent and how broadly it applies will be the determining factor in the court’s decision.
The four liberal justices spent much of their time highlighting the precedent the Supreme Court has already set on the issue and questioning attorneys about whether the Louisiana law was actually intended to make abortion safer, or if it was simply passed to make it less accessible. Kavanaugh’s fellow Trump appointee, Neil Gorsuch, and conservative Justice Clarence Thomas both stayed silent throughout the oral arguments.
The Supreme Court will likely not issue its opinion in the case, called June Medical Services v. Russo, until late spring.
The Louisiana law passed in 2014, and abortion clinics in the state sued over it. Two years later, in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the Supreme Court struck down the similar law in Texas, which had already gone into effect and caused half of the state’s clinics to close. In the wake of Justice Antonin Scalia’s death, the 2016 vote was 5–3 with Roberts dissenting.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has since retired, agreed with the court’s four more liberal justices in that case: Though the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the health of pregnant people, there was no evidence that admitting privileges actually did anything to help them. Further, there was clear evidence that it made abortion much less accessible.
The 2016 decision reaffirmed the idea that it is unconstitutional to place an “undue burden” on access to abortion, a benchmark used by the Supreme Court in every case examining abortion regulations since it was established in the landmark 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which upheld the national right to the procedure.
In that case, the court also denied a review of admitting privilege laws in Wisconsin and Mississippi, allowing the laws to be struck down by lower courts. Like those laws, Louisiana’s was modeled on the Texas law overturned in Whole Woman’s Health. A district court found the Louisiana law unconstitutional, stating that, if implemented, it would close two of just three abortion clinics in Louisiana, leaving one doctor who could perform abortions.
Then in 2018, in a very unexpected move, the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit reversed this decision, letting the law stand. The plaintiffs in the case rushed it to the Supreme Court to request an emergency stay to prevent the law from going into effect in Louisiana. The stay was granted, and the court agreed to take up the case. Roberts, despite having opposed striking down the Texas law, sided with the liberal justices to grant the stay.
In its narrowest interpretation, the Supreme Court is looking at whether the 5th Circuit was right in letting the Louisiana law stand. In a broader sense, the court is looking at whether Whole Woman’s Health was correctly decided and whether it applies to the entire country.
After the Supreme Court took up the petition, Louisiana’s legal team requested a new question be added to the case: whether June Medical Services and its doctors have the ability to challenge the law on behalf of their patients. This point, called the “third-party standing” question, is a legally complex one that could apply to cases outside of the issue of abortion. Justice Thomas brought it up the issue in his dissent to Whole Woman’s Health and anti-abortion advocates have been pushing it for years.
Typically, third parties are not legally allowed to file lawsuits on behalf of other people, but exceptions are made in cases where the plaintiffs have a “close relationship” with the damaged parties, as past Supreme Court cases have put it. The Center for Reproductive Rights argues that this clearly applies to this case because a) the drawn-out process of filing a lawsuit may prevent someone who is pregnant from legally getting the procedure done, and b) there is an extensive precedent of abortion doctors being able to sue on behalf of their patients. This is how the majority of cases challenging laws restricting abortion are filed.
Louisiana argued that this “close relationship” standard should not apply to abortion doctors because those doctors usually do not see a single patient more than a couple of times, and because there is a conflict of interest for doctors who are being regulated by the law. The law is intended to protect patients from unqualified doctors, Louisiana’s solicitor general, Elizabeth Murrill, argued in the Supreme Court on Wednesday, letting the doctors sue on the behalf of the people the law is protecting is contrary to that goal.
Justice Stephen Breyer, who wrote the opinion striking down Texas’s admitting privileges law in Whole Woman’s Health, asked the attorneys questions Wednesday that served to emphasize the importance of precedent in this case.
“How many abortion cases have allowed” third parties to sue on behalf of affected patients in the Supreme Court, Breyer asked Rikelman. “I counted eight,” he said. She agreed.
So we would have to overrule eight prior cases? He asked. Rikelman responded that yes, she believes they would.
Later he asked Jeffery Wall, an attorney with the US Department of Justice who was arguing on behalf of Louisiana, whether he was suggesting that the Supreme Court should overturn precedent that goes back to the 1800s. Wall, sputtering slightly, denied this.
“You just want to go back 40 years then,” Breyer retorted, likely referring to Roe v. Wade.
The Louisiana law, called the Louisiana Unsafe Abortion Protection Act, required doctors to have admitting privileges at hospitals within 30 miles of the facility. This means the doctor must be a member of the hospital’s staff and have a granted ability to admit and diagnose patients.
Liberal justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg spent most of their questions focused on the true intent of the law — whether Louisiana’s defense that it was to make sure patients seeking abortions were safe in the case of emergency, were true.
Ginsburg, especially, focused her questions on the necessity of the law.
She asked Murrill, “Do you dispute that first-trimester abortion” is one of the safest medical procedures there is, “even safer than childbirth?” Murill did not give a direct answer.
Ginsburg asserted that, in the vast majority of cases in which someone requires hospitalization after an abortion, it is during a medication abortion that they undergo at home. She asked Murill and Wall: If this were the case, wouldn’t it make more sense for them to go to a hospital near their home, rather than one within 30 miles of the abortion clinic as the Louisiana law requires?
Wall conceded that the majority of complications happen once the patient is at home, but sometimes they happen at the clinic.
Of the conservative justices on the court, Justice Samuel Alito challenged Rikelman the most, asking her about whether there was a conflict of interest for doctors to file this suit. Rikelman denied this. Alito also asked how hard the doctors actually tried to get admitting privileges.
Kavanaugh and Roberts seemed to have similar concerns about the case. Kavanaugh asked Rikelman repeatedly whether she thought all admitting privilege laws were unconstitutional, even in states where doctors could easily access admitting privileges. She answered that essentially, yes.
Roberts asked a similar question, whether the law should be considered on a state-by-state basis depending on how much it limits access and other facts, or whether it is a nationwide decision, as Whole Woman’s Health was widely interpreted to be. The attorneys arguing on behalf of Louisiana responded that they thought it was a state-by-state consideration; in the case of Louisiana, the law's benefits outweighed its cost.
On the steps of the Supreme Court after the hearing, attorneys for the Center for Reproductive Rights both told BuzzFeed News they were hopeful — Rikelman used the term “cautiously optimistic,” and her fellow attorney T.J. Tu, who did not argue in the hearing, said he was “elated.”
“I’m feeling great,” Tu said, adding that he was encouraged by the questions from Roberts and Kavanaugh. “We have always argued the case that there should be a broad majority on the court to recognize that there is no difference between this case and the case the Supreme Court decided only four years ago, and it seems like that’s true.”


buzzfeed--2020-03-04--The Surreal Year Where Only The Last 72 Hours Seem To Matter In Politics

Many years ago , in New Hampshire , Amy Klobuchar pulled 19.8 % of the vote .
Nobody will ever know exactly why that happened , but it seemed like Klobuchar having a good debate less than 24 hours before voting started played a significant role .
Having a good debate had never seemed to matter much for Klobuchar before this ; if anything , the loop where Klobuchar Had a Good Debate then polls did n't move had become a joke .
This good debate just seemed to fall at exactly the right moment , with attendant media coverage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reality — press one button over here , see the boom before your eyes over there — is the one we 've been living the last 10 days in politics .
Joe Biden won South Carolina , which was expected , but in an unexpectedly decisive fashion on the strength of Southern black voters and more moderate Southern white voters .
Multiple candidates dropped out and multiple candidates endorsed .
A rational choice undergirded that decision — no candidate , including Pete Buttigieg and Klobuchar , can win a Democratic nomination with white @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that exact coalition above in states across the Southeast on Super Tuesday .
But within those 72 surreal hours , suddenly , Biden also won exactly — literally — the kinds of voters in Minnesota and Massachusetts and Maine that he failed to win in Iowa and New Hampshire just weeks before .
“ I saw all these people dropping out and they were all endorsing Biden , and I thought , Biden is the one who can be elected , ” one would-be Elizabeth Warren voter in Los Angeles told BuzzFeed News @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did not mail in my ballot .
I went to vote today , tore up my ballot , and voted for Biden.
” Biden did not campaign in Tennessee , Arkansas , Minnesota , Massachusetts , or Oklahoma .
He did not advertise in most of the Super Tuesday states , or if he did , it was at a minor league level .
Some more establishment Democrats in those states have told reporters in recent weeks that Biden and his campaign have n't done much to secure their endorsements .
Except in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here by George C. Patton , “ Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser , ” Biden is not , as a candidate , meaningfully different than he was three weeks ago .
Now , he leads Sanders in a two-person race , locked into place by Nevada and South Carolina , compounded by California and the South .
Two expected outcomes took us back to where we were , a year ago , seemingly based on what ’ s happened in the immediate vicinity of people ’ s minds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of reaching out with your right hand somewhere offscreen , and tapping your own left shoulder .
But that 's been the tenor of the year so far .
In Iowa , the weekend before the caucuses , as you may recall , Ann Selzer did not release her well-regarded poll due to complaints about irregularities with at least one call .
Political media slipped into a full-blown crisis that was weird given that the rumored results didn ’ t actually look that much different from Selzer 's previous polls , which always @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 's performance in a state where many questioned his organization and the populace gets , exclusive to Iowa , an up-close look at the candidates .
“ The magnitude of the reactions to one poll ’ s fate raises alarm bells about the way we treat & interpret polls , ” wrote Daniel Nichanian of the Appeal .
But these kinds of moments all seemed linked up — a good debate , the belief in a sterling pollster , and especially the response to most black South Carolinians ’ emphatic support of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ People were waiting for someone , anyone to make a decision .

Many years ago, in New Hampshire, Amy Klobuchar pulled 19.8% of the vote. Nobody will ever know exactly why that happened, but it seemed like Klobuchar having a good debate less than 24 hours before voting started played a significant role.
Having a good debate had never seemed to matter much for Klobuchar before this; if anything, the loop where Klobuchar Had a Good Debate then polls didn't move had become a joke. This good debate just seemed to fall at exactly the right moment, with attendant media coverage.
But that kind of sudden shifting reality — press one button over here, see the boom before your eyes over there — is the one we've been living the last 10 days in politics.
Joe Biden won South Carolina, which was expected, but in an unexpectedly decisive fashion on the strength of Southern black voters and more moderate Southern white voters. Multiple candidates dropped out and multiple candidates endorsed. A rational choice undergirded that decision — no candidate, including Pete Buttigieg and Klobuchar, can win a Democratic nomination with white voters alone. And Biden won with that exact coalition above in states across the Southeast on Super Tuesday.
But within those 72 surreal hours, suddenly, Biden also won exactly — literally — the kinds of voters in Minnesota and Massachusetts and Maine that he failed to win in Iowa and New Hampshire just weeks before.
“I saw all these people dropping out and they were all endorsing Biden, and I thought, Biden is the one who can be elected,” one would-be Elizabeth Warren voter in Los Angeles told BuzzFeed News on Tuesday night. “So I did not mail in my ballot. I went to vote today, tore up my ballot, and voted for Biden.”
Biden did not campaign in Tennessee, Arkansas, Minnesota, Massachusetts, or Oklahoma. He did not advertise in most of the Super Tuesday states, or if he did, it was at a minor league level. Some more establishment Democrats in those states have told reporters in recent weeks that Biden and his campaign haven't done much to secure their endorsements. Except in one (recent) regard, outlined here by George C. Patton, “Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser,” Biden is not, as a candidate, meaningfully different than he was three weeks ago.
Now, he leads Sanders in a two-person race, locked into place by Nevada and South Carolina, compounded by California and the South.
Two expected outcomes took us back to where we were, a year ago, seemingly based on what’s happened in the immediate vicinity of people’s minds. The entire thing has the vibe of reaching out with your right hand somewhere offscreen, and tapping your own left shoulder.
But that's been the tenor of the year so far. In Iowa, the weekend before the caucuses, as you may recall, Ann Selzer did not release her well-regarded poll due to complaints about irregularities with at least one call. Political media slipped into a full-blown crisis that was weird given that the rumored results didn’t actually look that much different from Selzer's previous polls, which always were (correctly) cool on Biden's performance in a state where many questioned his organization and the populace gets, exclusive to Iowa, an up-close look at the candidates.
“The magnitude of the reactions to one poll’s fate raises alarm bells about the way we treat & interpret polls,” wrote Daniel Nichanian of the Appeal.
But these kinds of moments all seemed linked up — a good debate, the belief in a sterling pollster, and especially the response to most black South Carolinians’ emphatic support of a single candidate — in one way. People were waiting for someone, anyone to make a decision.


buzzfeed--2020-03-04--Democrats Call On The State Department To List White Supremacist Groups As Foreign Terrorist Organiz

Democrats Call On The State Department To List White Supremacist Groups As Foreign Terrorist Organizations

WASHINGTON — Ten Democrats are calling on the State Department to designate foreign white supremacists and neo-Nazi groups as foreign terrorist organizations .
In a new resolution , the House members call on Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to add four foreign white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups to the State Departments ’ s list of 69 foreign terrorist organizations .
Along with recognizing victims of white supremacy , the resolution condemns white supremacist extremism as a “ global ” and “ significant threat that is spreading across the United States.
” As a resolution , the legislation isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the House .
Democratic Rep. Max Rose is the lead sponsor and the resolution has nine cosponsors , including Reps. Eliot Engel , who chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee , and Bennie Thompson , chair of the Homeland Security Committee .
“ It ’ s important that when we consider fighting terrorism and preserving national security , that we make sure that we confront the threat of today and tomorrow not just the threats of today and yesterday , ” Rose told BuzzFeed News Tuesday during a phone interview .
The resolution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approved Rose ’ s Transnational White Supremacist Extremism Review Act , a bill that directs the Department of Homeland Security “ to develop and disseminate a threat assessment regarding threats to the United States associated with foreign violent white supremacist extremist organizations.
” The new resolution calls on the State Department to include specific foreign nationalistic groups in the nation ’ s foreign terrorist organization list , including the Nordic Resistance Movement of Sweden ; the National Action group of the United Kingdom ; Blood and Honour , a neo-Nazi group whose militant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ banned in Canada and Germany ; and Atomwaffen Division , a neo-Nazi group whose alleged ex-leader was arrested in Texas last week .
Rose and more than three dozen lawmakers sent Secretary of State Mike Pompeo a letter last October inquiring as to why certain white nationalist groups are not considered terrorist groups .
The State Department responded by saying that while they ’ re dedicated to the “ appropriate use of its designations authorities , ” they do not discuss internal deliberations as it relates to foreign terrorist organizations .
While the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it is not a federal crime nor does the FBI publish a list of groups they consider to be domestic terrorists .
However , the government does have the power to add to its list of foreign terrorist groups and domestic white nationalist groups , financially or otherwise , affiliated with US-designated foreign terrorist groups could face steeper penalties if convicted of a crime .
“ These domestic neo-Nazi organizations that we ’ ve been talking about all this time for so long now are not domestic — they are global , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ week , during a hearing with the House Homeland Security subcommittee on Intelligence and Counterterrorism , FBI officials told members of Congress there ’ s an ongoing effort to determine global connections between domestic and foreign white terrorist and neo-Nazi groups , including tracking those who train and fund such organizations , but would not elaborate on any ongoing investigations .
“ They have strong connections with foreign terrorist organizations and we have got to start to identify those foreign terrorist organizations in the same manner that we would identify ISIS and al-Qaida @ @ @ @ @ @ @ adherents , ” Rose told BuzzFeed News .

WASHINGTON — Ten Democrats are calling on the State Department to designate foreign white supremacists and neo-Nazi groups as foreign terrorist organizations.
In a new resolution, the House members call on Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to add four foreign white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups to the State Departments’s list of 69 foreign terrorist organizations. Along with recognizing victims of white supremacy, the resolution condemns white supremacist extremism as a “global” and “significant threat that is spreading across the United States.” As a resolution, the legislation isn’t binding, but rather expresses the sentiment of the House.
Democratic Rep. Max Rose is the lead sponsor and the resolution has nine cosponsors, including Reps. Eliot Engel, who chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee, and Bennie Thompson, chair of the Homeland Security Committee.
“It’s important that when we consider fighting terrorism and preserving national security, that we make sure that we confront the threat of today and tomorrow not just the threats of today and yesterday,” Rose told BuzzFeed News Tuesday during a phone interview.
The resolution comes after the Homeland Security Committee unanimously approved Rose’s Transnational White Supremacist Extremism Review Act, a bill that directs the Department of Homeland Security “to develop and disseminate a threat assessment regarding threats to the United States associated with foreign violent white supremacist extremist organizations.”
The new resolution calls on the State Department to include specific foreign nationalistic groups in the nation’s foreign terrorist organization list, including the Nordic Resistance Movement of Sweden; the National Action group of the United Kingdom; Blood and Honour, a neo-Nazi group whose militant arm, Combat 18, has been banned in Canada and Germany; and Atomwaffen Division, a neo-Nazi group whose alleged ex-leader was arrested in Texas last week.
Rose and more than three dozen lawmakers sent Secretary of State Mike Pompeo a letter last October inquiring as to why certain white nationalist groups are not considered terrorist groups. The State Department responded by saying that while they’re dedicated to the “appropriate use of its designations authorities,” they do not discuss internal deliberations as it relates to foreign terrorist organizations.
While the Patriot Act defines the term domestic terrorism, it is not a federal crime nor does the FBI publish a list of groups they consider to be domestic terrorists. However, the government does have the power to add to its list of foreign terrorist groups and domestic white nationalist groups, financially or otherwise, affiliated with US-designated foreign terrorist groups could face steeper penalties if convicted of a crime.
“These domestic neo-Nazi organizations that we’ve been talking about all this time for so long now are not domestic — they are global,” Rose told BuzzFeed News.
Last week, during a hearing with the House Homeland Security subcommittee on Intelligence and Counterterrorism, FBI officials told members of Congress there’s an ongoing effort to determine global connections between domestic and foreign white terrorist and neo-Nazi groups, including tracking those who train and fund such organizations, but would not elaborate on any ongoing investigations.
“They have strong connections with foreign terrorist organizations and we have got to start to identify those foreign terrorist organizations in the same manner that we would identify ISIS and al-Qaida and [go] after their domestic adherents,” Rose told BuzzFeed News.


buzzfeed--2020-03-04--Michael Bloomberg's Presidential Campaign Is Over

Michael Bloomberg dropped out of the presidential race on Wednesday morning after falling short on Super Tuesday , endorsing Joe Biden .
The announcement marked the end of an unconventional campaign that relied on huge amounts of advertising to make Bloomberg a viable candidate .
Though Bloomberg 's strategy succeeded in making him a serious contender in the Super Tuesday states he competed in , the Democratic establishment 's last-minute consolidation around Biden after the former vice president 's win in South Carolina and Bloomberg 's poor performance in presidential debates combined to doom his campaign .
“ I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inform decisions , '' he said in a statement .
`` After yesterday ’ s results , the delegate math has become virtually impossible — and a viable path to the nomination no longer exists . ''
“ I ’ ve always believed that defeating Donald Trump starts with uniting behind the candidate with the best shot to do it , '' he said .
`` After yesterday ’ s vote , it is clear that candidate is my friend and a great American , Joe Biden . ''
According to a senior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to drop out on Wednesday morning after a meeting with his senior staff .
The aide said that up until Friday , the campaign had believed they were in a three-person race .
But the campaign 's internal data had shown a dramatic shift toward Biden over the weekend as he won in South Carolina that ended up being reflected in the Super Tuesday results ; the shift happened so fast they `` could n't even model it . ''
The aide said that the campaign had started to struggle in the week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as Bloomberg began to take a `` ferocious amount of incoming '' in the form of opposition research and attacks on his record .
This , compounded with Bloomberg 's poor debate performances , put the campaign in a downswing it did n't have time to recover from before Super Tuesday .
A plan for turning Bloomberg 's campaign into an organization to help Biden is still being worked out , the aide said .
Bloomberg called Biden Wednesday morning and they had a `` good '' conversation , another aide to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ faced increasing pressure to get out of the race after Biden won South Carolina by a commanding margin , emerging as the favorite moderate candidate to take on frontrunner Bernie Sanders .
The former mayor spoke on Wednesday afternoon in a ballroom at the Sheraton in Midtown Manhattan , where he held a large “ Women for Mike ” themed campaign event in January and where he hosted election night rallies in past years during his mayoral campaigns .
He thanked supporters and staff , who packed the ballroom shoulder-to-shoulder .
He told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my mind we would have beat Donald Trump in November.
” “ But today I am clear-eyed about our overriding objective , which is victory in November , ” Bloomberg said .
“ Staying in would make it more difficult ” for Trump to be defeated in November , he said .
Referencing his motto “ in God we trust , everyone else bring data ” ( a line that elicited appreciative laughs from the audience ) , Bloomberg said the results had shown “ a viable path to the nomination no longer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our party ’ s nominee , but I will not walk away from the most important political fight of my life and I hope you won ’ t walk away either.
” “ I ’ m glad to say I endorse Joe Biden , and I hope you will join me , ” he said .
Bloomberg built his public reputation as a data-driven wonk who shows little emotion , making it all the more striking that he choked up near the end of his remarks , his voice thick with restrained tears @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sorry we didn ’ t win , but it ’ s still the best day of my life and tomorrow ’ s gon na be even better , ” Bloomberg said .
He referenced memorizing “ The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere ” as a child in Massachusetts ; “ Today I believe that our great nation still sees that light in the Old North Church Tower .
The light of freedom , the light of liberty , the light of equality , and the light of opportunity . ''
After Bloomberg wrapped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their teams in the ballroom while others filtered out , sporting campaign buttons and t-shirts .
Some posed for photos and horsed around outside the ballroom with a cardboard cutout of Bloomberg brought to the event by some staffers from Long Island .
His decision to actually end the campaign comes after voting across 15 states and territories on Super Tuesday .
Though Bloomberg was not on the ballot in any of the four early states , he had been able to raise his poll numbers significantly in the Super Tuesday states in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aggressive advertising campaign across the country .
Bloomberg spent an unprecedented amount during his brief campaign , which only launched in November , months after most other candidates had entered the race .
The billionaire former mayor of New York used over $ 500 million of his own fortune on his campaign , refusing to take donations and hiring an enormous staff .
For a time after the Iowa caucuses , which left the party in a state of confusion with no clear winner at first , Bloomberg ’ s candidacy gained strength @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alternative to the then-slumping Biden .
Bloomberg pitched himself as a competent manager who wasn ’ t intimidated by Donald Trump and would spend whatever it took to defeat him .
But Bloomberg ’ s decision to participate in primary debates after a DNC rule change allowed him to take part proved fateful ; his performance in the debate in Nevada on Feb. 19 was so weak that one poll showed that his favorability numbers had dropped by 20 % the next day .
Though Bloomberg did better in the second debate he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the debates showed that even his large , slick advertising campaign couldn ’ t hide his weaknesses as a candidate .
Bloomberg ’ s record as mayor and as a business executive came under intense scrutiny as he became a more serious candidate ; most notably , his record on stop-and-frisk and the history of allegations of sexism at his company became issues in the campaign .
Bloomberg ’ s rivals effectively used these issues against him , particularly Sen. Elizabeth Warren , who memorably challenged Bloomberg on the debate stage on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made accusations at his company .
Since the beginning of his run , Bloomberg had promised to continue to use his campaign infrastructure and money to support whoever the Democratic nominee is .
However , Bloomberg qualified this somewhat over the last week of his campaign as Sanders ’ campaign said it didn ’ t want his money ; he told the Houston Chronicle that he wouldn ’ t support Sanders if the senator 's team didn ’ t want the support .

Michael Bloomberg dropped out of the presidential race on Wednesday morning after falling short on Super Tuesday, endorsing Joe Biden.
The announcement marked the end of an unconventional campaign that relied on huge amounts of advertising to make Bloomberg a viable candidate. Though Bloomberg's strategy succeeded in making him a serious contender in the Super Tuesday states he competed in, the Democratic establishment's last-minute consolidation around Biden after the former vice president's win in South Carolina and Bloomberg's poor performance in presidential debates combined to doom his campaign.
“I’m a believer in using data to inform decisions," he said in a statement. "After yesterday’s results, the delegate math has become virtually impossible — and a viable path to the nomination no longer exists."
“I’ve always believed that defeating Donald Trump starts with uniting behind the candidate with the best shot to do it," he said. "After yesterday’s vote, it is clear that candidate is my friend and a great American, Joe Biden."
According to a senior Bloomberg aide, Bloomberg made the decision to drop out on Wednesday morning after a meeting with his senior staff.
The aide said that up until Friday, the campaign had believed they were in a three-person race. But the campaign's internal data had shown a dramatic shift toward Biden over the weekend as he won in South Carolina that ended up being reflected in the Super Tuesday results; the shift happened so fast they "couldn't even model it."
The aide said that the campaign had started to struggle in the week before the Nevada caucuses late last month, as Bloomberg began to take a "ferocious amount of incoming" in the form of opposition research and attacks on his record. This, compounded with Bloomberg's poor debate performances, put the campaign in a downswing it didn't have time to recover from before Super Tuesday. A plan for turning Bloomberg's campaign into an organization to help Biden is still being worked out, the aide said.
Bloomberg called Biden Wednesday morning and they had a "good" conversation, another aide to the former mayor said.
Bloomberg had faced increasing pressure to get out of the race after Biden won South Carolina by a commanding margin, emerging as the favorite moderate candidate to take on frontrunner Bernie Sanders.
The former mayor spoke on Wednesday afternoon in a ballroom at the Sheraton in Midtown Manhattan, where he held a large “Women for Mike” themed campaign event in January and where he hosted election night rallies in past years during his mayoral campaigns.
He thanked supporters and staff, who packed the ballroom shoulder-to-shoulder. He told them “there is no doubt in my mind we would have beat Donald Trump in November.”
“But today I am clear-eyed about our overriding objective, which is victory in November,” Bloomberg said. “Staying in would make it more difficult” for Trump to be defeated in November, he said.
Referencing his motto “in God we trust, everyone else bring data” (a line that elicited appreciative laughs from the audience), Bloomberg said the results had shown “a viable path to the nomination no longer existed. And I will not be our party’s nominee, but I will not walk away from the most important political fight of my life and I hope you won’t walk away either.”
“I’m glad to say I endorse Joe Biden, and I hope you will join me,” he said.
Bloomberg built his public reputation as a data-driven wonk who shows little emotion, making it all the more striking that he choked up near the end of his remarks, his voice thick with restrained tears.
“Today, I’m sorry we didn’t win, but it’s still the best day of my life and tomorrow’s gonna be even better,” Bloomberg said. He referenced memorizing “The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere” as a child in Massachusetts; “Today I believe that our great nation still sees that light in the Old North Church Tower. The light of freedom, the light of liberty, the light of equality, and the light of opportunity."
After Bloomberg wrapped up, some staffers took pictures with their teams in the ballroom while others filtered out, sporting campaign buttons and t-shirts. Some posed for photos and horsed around outside the ballroom with a cardboard cutout of Bloomberg brought to the event by some staffers from Long Island.
His decision to actually end the campaign comes after voting across 15 states and territories on Super Tuesday.
Though Bloomberg was not on the ballot in any of the four early states, he had been able to raise his poll numbers significantly in the Super Tuesday states in which he was competing by mounting an aggressive advertising campaign across the country. Bloomberg spent an unprecedented amount during his brief campaign, which only launched in November, months after most other candidates had entered the race. The billionaire former mayor of New York used over $500 million of his own fortune on his campaign, refusing to take donations and hiring an enormous staff.
For a time after the Iowa caucuses, which left the party in a state of confusion with no clear winner at first, Bloomberg’s candidacy gained strength as nervous moderate Democrats looked for an alternative to the then-slumping Biden. Bloomberg pitched himself as a competent manager who wasn’t intimidated by Donald Trump and would spend whatever it took to defeat him.
But Bloomberg’s decision to participate in primary debates after a DNC rule change allowed him to take part proved fateful; his performance in the debate in Nevada on Feb. 19 was so weak that one poll showed that his favorability numbers had dropped by 20% the next day. Though Bloomberg did better in the second debate he took part in, in South Carolina, the debates showed that even his large, slick advertising campaign couldn’t hide his weaknesses as a candidate.
Bloomberg’s record as mayor and as a business executive came under intense scrutiny as he became a more serious candidate; most notably, his record on stop-and-frisk and the history of allegations of sexism at his company became issues in the campaign. Bloomberg’s rivals effectively used these issues against him, particularly Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who memorably challenged Bloomberg on the debate stage on nondisclosure agreements signed by women who had made accusations at his company.
Since the beginning of his run, Bloomberg had promised to continue to use his campaign infrastructure and money to support whoever the Democratic nominee is. However, Bloomberg qualified this somewhat over the last week of his campaign as Sanders’ campaign said it didn’t want his money; he told the Houston Chronicle that he wouldn’t support Sanders if the senator's team didn’t want the support.


buzzfeed--2020-03-04--One Of The Last Anti-Abortion Democrats In Congress Defeated A Progressive Challenger Backed By Alex

One Of The Last Anti-Abortion Democrats In Congress Defeated A Progressive Challenger Backed By Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

WASHINGTON — Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar fended off a primary challenge from Jessica Cisneros , a 26-year-old immigration attorney , in Texas ’ s 28th district , in a defeat for the progressive movement .
The Super Tuesday primary was tight ; Decision Desk HQ ultimately called the race with Cuellar leading Cisneros , 52 % to 48 % .
Cisneros officially conceded Wednesday morning , saying in a statement , “ This is just the beginning .
The first thing we had to defeat was the culture of fear — and our movement was victorious in proving we 're @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to South Texas.
” Cisneros was backed by Justice Democrats , the progressive group that helped propel Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to victory two years ago .
She was the first candidate the group recruited and endorsed this cycle .
Cuellar is one of the last anti-abortion Democrats in the House and had held the seat since 2005 .
He also maintains an A rating from the National Rifle Association , and Cisneros and her allies coined him “ Trump ’ s favorite Democrat ” after Cuellar voted with the president nearly 70 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first two years in office .
Cisneros worked as an intern in Cuellar ’ s office in 2014 before deciding to launch a campaign to unseat him last summer .
Cisneros spoke Tuesday night before the race was officially called , telling supporters , “ I think one thing is clear , that our movement was victorious tonight ... That ’ s because this fight has always been about an opportunity to prove how one of us , a brown girl from our community , with her whole community behind her , could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a planned interview with Cuellar last week , Colin Strother , a spokesperson for the campaign , said Cuellar would not answer any questions framed as responses to attacks Cisneros made on him during the primary .
“ We ’ re not allowing a 26-year-old young lady who ’ s never done anything question the character of a dedicated public servant , ” Strother said .
( The campaign then canceled the interview half an hour before it was supposed to happen . )

WASHINGTON — Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar fended off a primary challenge from Jessica Cisneros, a 26-year-old immigration attorney, in Texas’s 28th district, in a defeat for the progressive movement.
The Super Tuesday primary was tight; Decision Desk HQ ultimately called the race with Cuellar leading Cisneros, 52% to 48%.
Cisneros officially conceded Wednesday morning, saying in a statement, “This is just the beginning. The first thing we had to defeat was the culture of fear — and our movement was victorious in proving we're within striking distance of bringing fundamental change to South Texas.”
Cisneros was backed by Justice Democrats, the progressive group that helped propel Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to victory two years ago. She was the first candidate the group recruited and endorsed this cycle.
Cuellar is one of the last anti-abortion Democrats in the House and had held the seat since 2005. He also maintains an A rating from the National Rifle Association, and Cisneros and her allies coined him “Trump’s favorite Democrat” after Cuellar voted with the president nearly 70% of the time during Trump’s first two years in office.
Cisneros worked as an intern in Cuellar’s office in 2014 before deciding to launch a campaign to unseat him last summer.
Cisneros spoke Tuesday night before the race was officially called, telling supporters, “I think one thing is clear, that our movement was victorious tonight... That’s because this fight has always been about an opportunity to prove how one of us, a brown girl from our community, with her whole community behind her, could take on an entire machine.”
Ahead of a planned interview with Cuellar last week, Colin Strother, a spokesperson for the campaign, said Cuellar would not answer any questions framed as responses to attacks Cisneros made on him during the primary.
“We’re not allowing a 26-year-old young lady who’s never done anything question the character of a dedicated public servant,” Strother said. (The campaign then canceled the interview half an hour before it was supposed to happen.)


buzzfeed--2020-03-04--Senators Are Probing Clearview AI On The Use Of Facial Recognition By Gulf States And International

Senators Are Probing Clearview AI On The Use Of Facial Recognition By Gulf States And International Markets

Markey , who also sent a letter to Clearview in January following stories in the New York Times and BuzzFeed News , called responses to that initial inquiry “ unacceptable.
” He sent a second letter on Tuesday , noting that the company is unique from other facial recognition firms because “ it scrapes billions of photos from social media sites rather than using relatively limited sets of photos from existing government databases.
” On Tuesday , Democratic Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts sent a letter to the company questioning the sharing of its facial recognition software with countries including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , following reporting from BuzzFeed News .
Last week BuzzFeed News reported that Clearview documents indicate that more than 2,200 private and public organizations around the world , including the FBI , Macy ’ s , and law enforcement agencies in 27 different counties , have tried its technology , which matches a photo of someone ’ s face to existing pictures of them on the web .
At least two US senators intend to probe Clearview AI , the secretive facial recognition startup that ’ s compiled a database of billions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other websites , about the sale of its technology to countries with documented human rights abuses .
“ Recent reports about Clearview potentially selling its technology to authoritarian regimes raise a number of concerns because you would risk enabling foreign governments to conduct mass surveillance and suppress their citizens , ” he wrote .
Markey ’ s letter comes on a day when a representative for Clearview is also expected to meet with Sen. Ron Wyden ’ s office to discuss the use of its technology and its rapid expansion .
A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Clearview CEO Hoan Ton-That had been expected to attend but pulled out the night before .
This is the third time the executive has asked to reschedule .
A Clearview spokesperson did not immediately respond to questions about Markey ’ s letters or the company ’ s meeting with Wyden ’ s office .
Since unveiling some of the details around its facial recognition software earlier this year , Clearview AI has drawn scrutiny for its claims about the accuracy of its technology and the entities with which it works .
While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his company is focused on working with law enforcement agencies in the US and Canada , BuzzFeed News ’ reporting last week showed the company is looking to expand in sectors including retail , real estate , and banking , and markets from Brazil to the Middle East .
Of particular interest to Markey and Wyden is Clearview ’ s work in Saudi Arabia and the UAE .
According to company documents reviewed by BuzzFeed News , the startup had provided free trials to various government-related agencies there .
Those same documents showed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Mubadala Investment Company , had run searches using the facial recognition tech , as had the Ministry of Interior ’ s Child Protection Center in Abu Dhabi .
In Saudi Arabia , Clearview documents show the company gave access to the Thakaa Center , also known as the AI Center of Advanced Studies , a Riyadh-based research center whose clients include Saudi Arabia ’ s Ministry of Investment .
News outlets have documented numerous human rights violations in the UAE and Saudi Arabia , where , for example , there are laws @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Jan. 31 letter written in reply to an early inquiry from Markey , Clearview lawyer Tor Ekeland made no mention of the company ’ s private industry or international clients , describing its software as a “ critical law enforcement tool.
” In the letter , Ekeland noted that Clearview had not been aware of any abuses of the tool and noted that “ all the harm is speculative.
” “ Clearview is committed to keeping it that way , and working with you to ensure that the use of biometrics in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protecting our communities and our constitutional rights , ” he wrote .
On Tuesday , Markey called that four-paragraph letter from Clearview “ unacceptable ” and sent another inquiry .
In it , he asked if the company could guarantee that its technology would not enable human rights abuses and inquired about what steps , if any , had been taken to ensure that Clearview was in compliance with the Children ’ s Online Privacy Protection Act ( COPPA ) .
He also asked a question about the company ’ s plans to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cameras and augmented reality glasses .
“ If so , will Clearview commit to halting all such integration given the grave privacy and civil liberty risks this would pose to the public ?
” he asked .
In a statement , Wyden said Clearview 's offering of its product to `` a Saudi regime that is responsible for horrifying human rights abuses '' was `` deeply troubling . ''
`` This company has repeatedly misrepresented its product to the public , shown a troubling disregard for basic security practices and now appears willing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well , '' he said .
`` Congress needs to consider whether U.S. companies should be able to export this kind of powerful surveillance technology to nations where it will likely be used to punish dissent and enable repression .
”

“Recent reports about Clearview potentially selling its technology to authoritarian regimes raise a number of concerns because you would risk enabling foreign governments to conduct mass surveillance and suppress their citizens,” he wrote.
Markey’s letter comes on a day when a representative for Clearview is also expected to meet with Sen. Ron Wyden’s office to discuss the use of its technology and its rapid expansion. A spokesperson for Wyden’s office said that Clearview CEO Hoan Ton-That had been expected to attend but pulled out the night before. This is the third time the executive has asked to reschedule.
A Clearview spokesperson did not immediately respond to questions about Markey’s letters or the company’s meeting with Wyden’s office.
Since unveiling some of the details around its facial recognition software earlier this year, Clearview AI has drawn scrutiny for its claims about the accuracy of its technology and the entities with which it works. While Ton-That has maintained in media interviews that his company is focused on working with law enforcement agencies in the US and Canada, BuzzFeed News’ reporting last week showed the company is looking to expand in sectors including retail, real estate, and banking, and markets from Brazil to the Middle East.
Of particular interest to Markey and Wyden is Clearview’s work in Saudi Arabia and the UAE. According to company documents reviewed by BuzzFeed News, the startup had provided free trials to various government-related agencies there. Those same documents showed that UAE’s sovereign wealth fund, Mubadala Investment Company, had run searches using the facial recognition tech, as had the Ministry of Interior’s Child Protection Center in Abu Dhabi.
In Saudi Arabia, Clearview documents show the company gave access to the Thakaa Center, also known as the AI Center of Advanced Studies, a Riyadh-based research center whose clients include Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Investment. News outlets have documented numerous human rights violations in the UAE and Saudi Arabia, where, for example, there are laws that discriminate against LGBTQ individuals.
In a Jan. 31 letter written in reply to an early inquiry from Markey, Clearview lawyer Tor Ekeland made no mention of the company’s private industry or international clients, describing its software as a “critical law enforcement tool.” In the letter, Ekeland noted that Clearview had not been aware of any abuses of the tool and noted that “all the harm is speculative.”
“Clearview is committed to keeping it that way, and working with you to ensure that the use of biometrics in law enforcement strikes the proper balance between protecting our communities and our constitutional rights,” he wrote.
On Tuesday, Markey called that four-paragraph letter from Clearview “unacceptable” and sent another inquiry. In it, he asked if the company could guarantee that its technology would not enable human rights abuses and inquired about what steps, if any, had been taken to ensure that Clearview was in compliance with the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA).
He also asked a question about the company’s plans to work on live facial recognition with surveillance cameras and augmented reality glasses. “If so, will Clearview commit to halting all such integration given the grave privacy and civil liberty risks this would pose to the public?” he asked.
In a statement, Wyden said Clearview's offering of its product to "a Saudi regime that is responsible for horrifying human rights abuses" was "deeply troubling."
"This company has repeatedly misrepresented its product to the public, shown a troubling disregard for basic security practices and now appears willing to offer its technology to autocratic regimes as well," he said. "Congress needs to consider whether U.S. companies should be able to export this kind of powerful surveillance technology to nations where it will likely be used to punish dissent and enable repression.”


buzzfeed--2020-03-04--A Former Member Of Congress Involved In Trump's Ukraine Saga Could Be Close To Getting His Job Back

WASHINGTON — A former powerful Republican member of Congress who emerged as a prominent player in the Ukraine saga and took thousands of dollars in donations from two of Rudy Giuliani ’ s indicted associates is poised to return to Congress if he can notch a primary win this week .
Texas Rep. Pete Sessions narrowly lost his Dallas-area seat in the 2018 midterms to a Democrat , but is now vying for the Republican nomination in a nearby district .
Whoever wins the crowded primary on Tuesday is likely to succeed in the general election as the district is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just days after Sessions announced his reelection bid , federal prosecutors alleged that two men at the center of President Donald Trump ’ s impeachment had made thousands in illegal contributions to Sessions during his last campaign .
The men , Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman , had also tried to use Sessions to get the US ambassador to Ukraine fired as part of what ’ s been dubbed a political smear campaign .
It ’ s unclear whether voters in the Waco-area district where Sessions is now running care about the Ukraine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mark a reversal of his political fortunes following his defeat in 2018 , and position him to rejoin the upper ranks of the House Republican caucus after being caught up in a high-profile criminal investigation .
Sessions , the former head of the House Rules Committee and son of an FBI director , announced in early October that he would run in the district of retiring GOP Rep. Bill Flores .
Sessions ’ campaign said his desire to “ reverse the nation ’ s lurch to the left ” is part of what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Flores ’ solidly red district , rather than trying to wrest control of his old seat back from a Democrat .
Immediately , Flores and other local Republicans criticized Sessions for jumping into the race .
But Sessions ’ headaches would worsen in the weeks ahead .
On Oct. 10 , US attorneys in New York revealed a series of campaign finance–related charges against Parnas and Fruman .
Their indictment detailed how they used hefty — and in some cases illegal — political donations to gain access to influential Republicans , including “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the spring of 2018 , Parnas and Fruman each donated $ 2,700 to Sessions and “ committed to raise $ 20,000 ” for him , prosecutors said .
“ These contributions were made for the purpose of gaining influence with politicians so as to advance their own personal financial interests and the political interests of Ukrainian government officials , including at least one Ukrainian government official with whom they were working , ” the indictment read .
Around that time , the Soviet-born businesspeople scored a meeting with Sessions where they blasted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Ukraine .
Parnas and Giuliani , a lawyer working for Trump , later said that they wanted Yovanovitch out of the way as they pressured the Ukrainian government to announce investigations into former vice president Joe Biden and his son , Hunter .
The effort to remove Yovanovitch was “ conducted , at least in part , at the request of one or more Ukrainian government officials , ” prosecutors said .
In text messages belonging to Parnas , Yuriy Lutsenko , then Ukraine ’ s top prosecutor , emerged as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after she criticized Ukraine ’ s efforts to root out corruption .
After meeting with Parnas and Fruman , Sessions wrote a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo , saying he had “ received notice from close companions ” that Yovanovitch had been bad-mouthing the Trump administration and asking Pompeo to fire her , as BuzzFeed News first reported last summer .
Sessions released a statement when the indictment was made public refusing to identify himself as the unnamed member of Congress , but defending his conduct .
He said he had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his meetings with Parnas and Fruman , arguing that his letter to Pompeo followed conversations with “ several congressional colleagues ” about Yovanovitch .

WASHINGTON — A former powerful Republican member of Congress who emerged as a prominent player in the Ukraine saga and took thousands of dollars in donations from two of Rudy Giuliani’s indicted associates is poised to return to Congress if he can notch a primary win this week.
Texas Rep. Pete Sessions narrowly lost his Dallas-area seat in the 2018 midterms to a Democrat, but is now vying for the Republican nomination in a nearby district. Whoever wins the crowded primary on Tuesday is likely to succeed in the general election as the district is safely Republican.
In the fall, just days after Sessions announced his reelection bid, federal prosecutors alleged that two men at the center of President Donald Trump’s impeachment had made thousands in illegal contributions to Sessions during his last campaign. The men, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, had also tried to use Sessions to get the US ambassador to Ukraine fired as part of what’s been dubbed a political smear campaign.
It’s unclear whether voters in the Waco-area district where Sessions is now running care about the Ukraine affair, but a victory Tuesday would mark a reversal of his political fortunes following his defeat in 2018, and position him to rejoin the upper ranks of the House Republican caucus after being caught up in a high-profile criminal investigation.
Sessions, the former head of the House Rules Committee and son of an FBI director, announced in early October that he would run in the district of retiring GOP Rep. Bill Flores. Sessions’ campaign said his desire to “reverse the nation’s lurch to the left” is part of what prompted him to announce a run in Flores’ solidly red district, rather than trying to wrest control of his old seat back from a Democrat.
Immediately, Flores and other local Republicans criticized Sessions for jumping into the race. But Sessions’ headaches would worsen in the weeks ahead.
On Oct. 10, US attorneys in New York revealed a series of campaign finance–related charges against Parnas and Fruman. Their indictment detailed how they used hefty — and in some cases illegal — political donations to gain access to influential Republicans, including “Congressman-1,” identifiable as Sessions. In the spring of 2018, Parnas and Fruman each donated $2,700 to Sessions and “committed to raise $20,000” for him, prosecutors said.
“These contributions were made for the purpose of gaining influence with politicians so as to advance their own personal financial interests and the political interests of Ukrainian government officials, including at least one Ukrainian government official with whom they were working,” the indictment read.
Around that time, the Soviet-born businesspeople scored a meeting with Sessions where they blasted Marie Yovanovitch, then the US ambassador to Ukraine. Parnas and Giuliani, a lawyer working for Trump, later said that they wanted Yovanovitch out of the way as they pressured the Ukrainian government to announce investigations into former vice president Joe Biden and his son, Hunter.
The effort to remove Yovanovitch was “conducted, at least in part, at the request of one or more Ukrainian government officials,” prosecutors said. In text messages belonging to Parnas, Yuriy Lutsenko, then Ukraine’s top prosecutor, emerged as a vocal advocate for Yovanovitch’s dismissal after she criticized Ukraine’s efforts to root out corruption.
After meeting with Parnas and Fruman, Sessions wrote a letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, saying he had “received notice from close companions” that Yovanovitch had been bad-mouthing the Trump administration and asking Pompeo to fire her, as BuzzFeed News first reported last summer.
Sessions released a statement when the indictment was made public refusing to identify himself as the unnamed member of Congress, but defending his conduct. He said he had taken “no official action” after his meetings with Parnas and Fruman, arguing that his letter to Pompeo followed conversations with “several congressional colleagues” about Yovanovitch.


buzzfeed--2020-03-04--The National Right To Abortion Is Facing An Intense Threat. This Group Has Been Preparing For This F

The National Right To Abortion Is Facing An Intense Threat. This Group Has Been Preparing For This Fight For Decades.

The Center for Reproductive Rights will argue in the first major Supreme Court case over abortion in the Trump era , which could gut Roe v. Wade .
It is no exaggeration to say that the Center for Reproductive Rights was made for this moment .
Around 30 years ago , Nancy Northup , the center ’ s current president , was outside an abortion clinic in Baton Rouge , Louisiana , linking arms with the people around her to form a human barricade to protect patients trying to get inside .
Hundreds of anti-abortion protesters faced them down , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to block patients from entering the clinic .
Northup was just out of law school at the time and clerking for a judge in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in Louisiana .
She had watched the fight over abortion rights reach a fever pitch in 1989 , both in the courts and on the ground .
Dozens of abortion clinics had been bombed or burned down in recent years .
The Supreme Court , thanks to appointments made by the Republican president , was growing more and more conservative , and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of dismantling Roe v. Wade .
Though Roe survived , the court had still affirmed laws limiting access to abortion in Louisiana and Missouri .
Three decades later , Northup said , not much has changed .
“ I had a frontline view to how vitriolic the battle was in Louisiana back then , ” Northup told BuzzFeed News as she sat in business attire in her corner office in lower Manhattan , the Brooklyn Bridge stretching over the East River behind her .
“ It ’ s really unfortunate that we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and this remains such an entrenched fight , ” she said .
The Center for Reproductive Rights , a major nonprofit and nonpartisan organization , focuses on bringing anti-abortion laws to court to block and overturn them before they can go into effect .
On March 4 , attorneys from the center will appear before the Supreme Court to argue against another Louisiana law that could gut the constitutional right to abortion .
This will be the first case on abortion to come before the conservative justices appointed by President Donald Trump , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights advocates are nervous .
The case , June Medical Services v. Russo , pertains to a law passed in 2014 that requires doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges to local hospitals .
This requirement has proven to be unnecessary for clinics ( an abortion rarely results in complications , and if one did , the patient would be admitted to a hospital regardless of the doctor ’ s privileges ) .
And it ’ s so difficult to implement that when Texas passed a similar law , it shut down half @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abortion-related regulations , referred to by advocates as TRAP ( Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers ) laws , purport to be for the patient ’ s safety but in fact aim to close clinics and create barriers to accessing the procedure .
But what makes this case unusual is that the Center for Reproductive Rights already argued against this law in front of the Supreme Court just four years ago— and won .
In 2016 , the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case Whole Woman 's Health v. Hellerstedt , a case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ admitting privileges in Texas in 2013 .
The court struck it down 5–3 , giving abortion rights advocates their biggest legal win in decades .
The court ’ s decision strongly reaffirmed that placing an “ undue burden ” on access to abortion is unconstitutional .
“ Unnecessary health regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion impose an undue burden on the right , ” Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the court ’ s opinion , concluding that Texas ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if any , health benefits for women , poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions , and constitutes an 'undue burden ' on their constitutional right to do so . ''
With such a cut-and-dried opinion from the highest court in the country , it was a shock to the center , and advocates in general , when Louisiana ’ s 5th Circuit Court of Appeals — where , coincidentally , Northup got her start — let a nearly identical law stand .
In the 5th Circuit Court ’ s opinion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ between the cases is not in the two laws , which the court admitted were virtually identical , but rather between the two states .
It may be easier for doctors to obtain admitting privileges in Louisiana than it is in Texas , Smith wrote ( the center strongly contests this assertion ) .
If the Supreme Court overturns Whole Woman ’ s Health , it would be a green light for states with anti-abortion legislatures to pass similar laws , closing down clinics and potentially making the procedure totally inaccessible in their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the justices could use this case to entirely overturn Roe v. Wade and completely undo the national right to abortion , as some advocates fear , it is much more likely that the court would instead give states the ability to regulate abortion until Roe only exists on paper .
The center was created to fight a case like this .
In 1992 , lawyer Janet Benshoof founded the organization to represent Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania in one of the only other major Supreme Court cases on abortion to be decided in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ v. Casey .
In that case , the center argued against Pennsylvania laws that required a married woman seeking an abortion to provide a signed statement indicating she notified her spouse , required minors to notify their parents , required patients to wait 24 hours between appointments to get an abortion , and required doctors to read patients scripts that were often inaccurate or opposed to abortion .
The center , then called the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy , won the case 5–4 , but it was a bittersweet victory .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the spousal-notification law but allowed the rest of the restrictions to go into place .
That decision has enabled the success of hundreds of TRAP laws nationwide in the two decades since , which have closed dozens of clinics , limited abortion access , and kept the center busy in the courts .
Northup took over as the center ’ s president and CEO in 2003 .
During her tenure , she has significantly built up the organization , expanding the team from around 55 staff members to hundreds , with around 800 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ work for the center .
Since Northup started , the organization ’ s operating budget has grown from around $ 6 million to $ 40 million , and the center is often thought to be on par with Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union , two reproductive rights legal giants .
In 2016 , when the center helped deliver a major Supreme Court win in Whole Women ’ s Health , the future looked bright for abortion rights .
The center and its supporters thought they could soon start working to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on repealing restrictions .
Now , more than three years later , Northup is “ alarmed.
” “ Never have I been as concerned as I am today about the promise of Roe being hollowed out for the women in this country , ” she said in an emphatic but measured voice during a hearing on the Women ’ s Health Protection Act before Congress in mid-February .
She reiterated this thought to BuzzFeed News .
“ What 's alarming is the extremism of the laws that were passed in the last year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wade , that Alabama would pass a blanket abortion ban that would be signed by the governor , that other states would pass bans before women know that they 're pregnant , ” Northup told BuzzFeed News in her office , two days after returning from Congress .
“ Being back in the Supreme Court , litigating the same issue we won four years ago — that gives me grave concern.
” Usually , legal and policy organizations like the center know for years which cases are likely to be taken up before @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that time to prepare .
When Louisiana passed the exact same hospital admitting privileges law that had been struck down in Texas , and when the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to take it up , the center thought it was a “ nothingburger , ” Center for Reproductive Rights Senior Counsel T.J. Tu told BuzzFeed News .
Tu had started at the center just two weeks before , and this case was his first assignment .
He thought it was so open-and-shut that he asked his supervisor for more work , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possibly fill up his days .
When the 5th Circuit upheld Louisiana ’ s law , Tu and the whole center were shocked .
“ We have mined the Supreme Court jurisprudence , and there 's no situation that looks remotely like this , where the court has been confronted with an identical law in such a short period of time , ” Tu said .
“ It ’ s unheard of .
There was no way this one was going to be the next big abortion rights case , but here we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ action , putting what is normally a decade ’ s worth of work into a case that would be argued in just one year .
Eight days away from the Louisiana law going into effect , the center rushed to the Supreme Court to request an emergency stay .
The lawyers were told by prognosticators they had no chance of getting it , Tu said , but it was their Hail Mary pass .
“ Stays in general are rare .
You only really see them in the movies , ” Tu , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case alongside the center ’ s senior director , Julie Rikelman , told BuzzFeed News .
You need the assent of five justices to get a stay , the same number you need to win a case — but to the center ’ s surprise , it was granted , the law was blocked , and clinics were prevented from closing .
This gave the center a sliver of hope that the Supreme Court , even with its new conservative majority , might rule on its side .
“ The center has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they can be ready for a moment like this , ” Tu said .
As if this weren ’ t enough , the center was then thrown another curveball when Louisiana ’ s legal team entered a last-minute petition to the Supreme Court .
The brief argued that the center and the abortion clinic it represents , June Medical Services , shouldn ’ t even have the ability to sue the state over abortion laws , and that the only people who should be able to sue are the patients themselves .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of how the center ( and other organizations , like Planned Parenthood and the ACLU ) functions .
Since its inception , the center has mainly represented clinics suing state governments on behalf of their patients in order to block anti-abortion laws .
People seeking abortions in states that are hostile to the procedure often only have a matter of weeks between finding out they are pregnant and being able to get an abortion .
The law requires the plaintiff to be pregnant when they file the suit .
Without organizations like the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their patients ’ behalf , very few lawsuits challenging anti-abortion laws would be filed .
“ It would be devastating for us and other organizations that litigate ” if the Supreme Court were to agree with Louisiana on this issue , Northup told BuzzFeed News .
Tu agreed , saying that the vast majority of the cases they are currently working on would be thrown into turmoil .
“ It would instantly create an earthquake , ” Northup added .
Louisana ’ s ask is not entirely out of the blue , getting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has long been a strategy pursued by anti-abortion organizations , and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas even argued against it in his dissent in the Whole Woman ’ s Health case .
Still , the center ’ s lawyers said they are hopeful .
“ The Supreme Court has recognized third-party standing for almost a hundred years , and it 's done that in a number of cases — not just abortion , ” Rikelman , the lead attorney on the case , said in a press briefing in mid-February .
The practice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Court , and if it were overturned it could have wide-reaching effects for cases outside of the abortion sphere , including , for example , gun sellers suing over Second Amendment rights on behalf of their customers or teachers suing on behalf of their students .
Despite the feeling of emergency permeating the center in the weeks leading up to the Supreme Court hearing , the court ’ s decision — which will likely come in late spring or early summer — is in no way predictable .
Nothing has changed about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 Whole Woman ’ s Health decision , the attorneys from the center said .
Chief Justice John Roberts , now considered the court 's swing vote , joined the dissent in Whole Woman 's Health , though attorneys from the center insisted this does not necessarily indicate what his vote will be this time around .
The only thing that ’ s changed is the makeup of the Supreme Court and who occupies the White House .
It is in the court ’ s interest to appear above politics , above the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how difficult doing so may be , the attorneys emphasized .
Flipping their own decision in such a short amount of time would undermine that .
“ I have to feel hopeful , or I can ’ t get out of bed in the morning , ” Janice Mac Avoy , a prominent member of the center ’ s board of directors , told BuzzFeed News over the phone .
“ [ The justices ] literally protect our freedoms .
They ’ re the last bastion protecting us against tyranny , and I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mac Avoy paused for a moment and began to laugh .
“ As soon as I said that I was like , ‘ Oh , we ’ re fucked , ’ ” she said .
No matter what happens , the center has a plan .
For one , there ’ s the Women ’ s Health Protection Act , the bill Northup testified to Congress about this month .
The bill — which the center first spearheaded in 2013 during the Obama administration and now has more than 150 Democratic cosponsors — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national right to abortion law no matter what the Supreme Court decides and giving lower courts guidance on which state laws would violate federal law .
The legislation has the support of every Democratic presidential candidate and is likely to pass the House , but not the Republican-controlled Senate .
But Northup said advocates are preparing the bill so they ’ ll be “ ready to move ” if Democrats take back the Senate and the White House .
The center has also turned more attention to the states , working to pass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ courts , to get the right to abortion enshrined in state constitutions even as it is degraded federally .
But Northup ’ s moon shot , she told BuzzFeed News , is to get an equality amendment in the US Constitution that would protect abortion rights as well as prohibit discrimination .
“ If I have to go out of my career the way it came in , if I have to doorknock for the rest of my life , I ’ ll do it , ” Northup said .
“ But you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ always , always another route to go.
” ●

It is no exaggeration to say that the Center for Reproductive Rights was made for this moment.
Around 30 years ago, Nancy Northup, the center’s current president, was outside an abortion clinic in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, linking arms with the people around her to form a human barricade to protect patients trying to get inside. Hundreds of anti-abortion protesters faced them down, chanting, saying prayers, and attempting to block patients from entering the clinic.
Northup was just out of law school at the time and clerking for a judge in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in Louisiana. She had watched the fight over abortion rights reach a fever pitch in 1989, both in the courts and on the ground. Dozens of abortion clinics had been bombed or burned down in recent years. The Supreme Court, thanks to appointments made by the Republican president, was growing more and more conservative, and a recent case was just one vote short of dismantling Roe v. Wade. Though Roe survived, the court had still affirmed laws limiting access to abortion in Louisiana and Missouri.
Three decades later, Northup said, not much has changed.
“I had a frontline view to how vitriolic the battle was in Louisiana back then,” Northup told BuzzFeed News as she sat in business attire in her corner office in lower Manhattan, the Brooklyn Bridge stretching over the East River behind her.
“It’s really unfortunate that we’re here, 30 years later, and this remains such an entrenched fight,” she said.
The Center for Reproductive Rights, a major nonprofit and nonpartisan organization, focuses on bringing anti-abortion laws to court to block and overturn them before they can go into effect.
On March 4, attorneys from the center will appear before the Supreme Court to argue against another Louisiana law that could gut the constitutional right to abortion. This will be the first case on abortion to come before the conservative justices appointed by President Donald Trump, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. Abortion rights advocates are nervous.
The case, June Medical Services v. Russo, pertains to a law passed in 2014 that requires doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges to local hospitals. This requirement has proven to be unnecessary for clinics (an abortion rarely results in complications, and if one did, the patient would be admitted to a hospital regardless of the doctor’s privileges). And it’s so difficult to implement that when Texas passed a similar law, it shut down half the state’s clinics.
Many abortion-related regulations, referred to by advocates as TRAP (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) laws, purport to be for the patient’s safety but in fact aim to close clinics and create barriers to accessing the procedure. But what makes this case unusual is that the Center for Reproductive Rights already argued against this law in front of the Supreme Court just four years ago— and won.
In 2016, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, a case over a nearly identical law requiring hospital admitting privileges in Texas in 2013. The court struck it down 5–3, giving abortion rights advocates their biggest legal win in decades. The court’s decision strongly reaffirmed that placing an “undue burden” on access to abortion is unconstitutional.
“Unnecessary health regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion impose an undue burden on the right,” Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in the court’s opinion, concluding that Texas’s admitting privilege requirement “provides few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions, and constitutes an 'undue burden' on their constitutional right to do so."
With such a cut-and-dried opinion from the highest court in the country, it was a shock to the center, and advocates in general, when Louisiana’s 5th Circuit Court of Appeals — where, coincidentally, Northup got her start — let a nearly identical law stand. In the 5th Circuit Court’s opinion, Judge Jerry Smith suggested the difference between the cases is not in the two laws, which the court admitted were virtually identical, but rather between the two states. It may be easier for doctors to obtain admitting privileges in Louisiana than it is in Texas, Smith wrote (the center strongly contests this assertion).
If the Supreme Court overturns Whole Woman’s Health, it would be a green light for states with anti-abortion legislatures to pass similar laws, closing down clinics and potentially making the procedure totally inaccessible in their states. While it is theoretically possible the justices could use this case to entirely overturn Roe v. Wade and completely undo the national right to abortion, as some advocates fear, it is much more likely that the court would instead give states the ability to regulate abortion until Roe only exists on paper.