motherjones--2020-08-05--Kris Kobach, the Nativist Vote Suppressor, Loses His Kansas Senate Primary

Kris Kobach spent the final days of his primary campaign denying that he ’ s racist .
“ If I ’ m a white nationalist , I ’ m not a very good one , ” Kansas ’ notorious Republican Senate candidate said at his closing events .
In fact , this statement is entirely true .
Kobach has the record of a white nationalist , just one who has repeatedly bungled his agenda .
The reason Kobach found himself fending off questions about white nationalism is because his fellow Republicans accused him of having ties to white nationalists in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In a political world that is often sinister , this ad is , like Kobach ’ s response , an act of political honesty .
“ Why would Kris Kobach lose again in November ?
” the ad asks .
“ Kobach has strong ties to white nationalists.
” The message is crystal clear : Kobach will lose to a Democrat in November , so vote against him in the primary .
Kobach shares an agenda with President Donald Trump , one of a small cohort of national figures who can claim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and pro-voter suppression as Trump .
And he can boast that he was advocating these policies before Trump fully embraced that agenda .
Republicans ’ problem with Kobach isn ’ t necessarily his policies , it ’ s that in recent years , he ’ s become a loser .
Republicans have openly admitted that they spent money to defeat him in the primary so that they didn ’ t have to spend even more money to help him win in November .
On Tuesday , those king-making Republicans got their wish .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a more palatable Republican , Rep. Roger Marshall .
The Republicans managed to dodge a bullet , though the Democratic nominee , Barbara Bollier , has proved a formidable candidate despite the state ’ s conservative leanings .
Still , it was no mystery why Democrats preferred to run against Kobach .
In 2018 , Kobach won a bruising Republican primary for governor by less than 400 votes , then went on to lose the general election to a Democrat by five points—an impressive loss for a Republican in deeply red Kansas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including Mitch McConnell , tried everything to keep Kobach off the ballot this November .
First they courted Secretary of State Mike Pompeo , a former congressman from Wichita , to run .
When that failed , they tried to get Trump to endorse one of Kobach ’ s opponents .
Trump refused .
Democrats also keyed onto Kobach ’ s weakness as a candidate , thinking Bollier would have a better chance against him .
A group of Democrats , whose identity is not known , set up a super PAC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s lackluster campaign in the final weeks of the primary with at least $ 4 million in television ads .
This prompted panic from Republicans , who also believe Kobach could lose to Bollier , who responded with $ 3.3 million in ads , including the one that painted him as a white nationalist .
Kobach hasn ’ t always bore the stench of loss , and his successes have harmed untold numbers of immigrants and people of color , as well as many other innocent people caught up in his machinations to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A lawyer educated at Harvard , Yale , and Oxford , Kobach has spent two decades dedicated to keeping nonwhite immigrants out of the United States and stopping people of color and other Democratic-leaning communities from voting .
After September 11 , he used a perch in the Justice Department to implement an anti-Muslim program in the name of counterterrorism that secured no known convictions on terrorist charges , but did lead to deportation proceedings against 14,000 Muslim men .
Kobach has deemed it a “ great success.
” He returned to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Congress , and then spent the rest of the decade doing legal work to create and defend of nativist laws around the country while serving a stint chairing Kansas ’ s Republican Party .
His proto-Trumpism included encouraging local police departments to enforce federal immigration statutes .
This led to Kobach ’ s starring role in crafting SB1070 , a notorious 2010 Arizona law that allowed local police to demand immigration papers of anyone they stopped .
His national profile rose , and he wrote a similar anti-immigrant law for Alabama .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ secretary of state .
“ My hope is that Kansas will be to stopping election fraud what Arizona is to stopping illegal immigration , ” he declared during his successful campaign .
In office , Kobach championed two major voter suppression initiatives .
The first was the Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck Program , or Crosscheck , a database that ostensibly allowed states to compare voter registration files and flag people who may be registered in more than one state .
There are successful programs that voting officials use to do this work , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s propaganda that voter fraud was undermining American elections while simultaneously helping him disenfranchise eligible voters who were chronically misidentified and removed from the rolls .
Researchers at Stanford , Harvard , Yale , and the University of Pennsylvania did a statistical analysis of the program , finding that “ 200 legitimate voters may be impeded from voting for every double vote stopped.
” Kobach managed the program so badly that it had a false positive rate of 99 percent , disproportionately affecting people of color .
Kobach ’ s second major @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Act , a state bill which required Kansans to show proof of citizenship , such as a passport or birth certificate , in order to register to vote .
Again , Kobach claimed the law ’ s purpose was to prevent voter fraud , but all it did was prevent one in seven new voters from registering .
When Donald Trump became president , he falsely attributed his loss of the popular vote to voter fraud , then tapped Kobach to run a commission to investigate election integrity .
The roadmap forward was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ president ’ s lie , while using his position on the commission to push national voter registration restrictions like he had in Kansas and turn Crosscheck into a nationwide requirement .
Republicans had control of the White House and both houses of Congress .
Kobach-style voter suppression appeared on the brink of a major national breakthrough .
Instead , Kobach faltered spectacularly as his good luck quickly came to an end .
The commission immediately ran into legal trouble for violating federal privacy and transparency laws .
When Trump finally disbanded it in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the commission ’ s legal woes , it faced 15 different lawsuits , including one from one of its own commissioners who had been kept out of the loop by Kobach and his allies .
Back in Kansas , things weren ’ t going any better .
The ACLU was suing to block his proof of citizenship law and Kobach ’ s defense was going very poorly : In April of 2018 , federal judge Julie Robinson held Kobach in contempt of court for failing to follow a court order to register Kansas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ruled that the proof of citizenship requirement violated both federal law and the US Constitution .
She also ordered Kobach to take six hours of continuing legal education on how to introduce evidence at trial .
Meanwhile , states began to pull out of the Crosscheck program , which Kobach had only recently hoped would become national , over bad data .
Privacy concerns led to a Department of Homeland Security audit and a class action lawsuit from the ACLU .
In 2019 , Kobach ’ s successor as Kansas secretary of state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wasn ’ t giving up .
Too toxic by now to get a post in the Trump administration—not because Trump had any problem with him but because Senate Republicans might—he launched a bid for governor in 2018 .
Despite Trump ’ s endorsement , he came up short against Democrat Laura Kelly , a defeat big enough to sufficiently brand himself a loser .
Nevertheless , Kobach decided to run for Senate in 2020 .
Some of Kobach ’ s losing streak can be attributed to hubris .
His farcical performance in court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if he had not chosen to represent the law himself , a disastrous decision compounded by his failure to study up on how to conduct oneself during a trial .
Given the chance to make voting more difficult for people of color on a national scale as the head of Trump ’ s voter integrity commission , he instead led it into oblivion by failing to follow basic federal privacy and transparency requirements .
His failure to become governor in 2018 was in part attributable to a lazy campaign in which he reportedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basic get-out-the-vote program , relying instead on Trump ’ s endorsement and his frequent appearances on cable news .
One GOP operative told the Kansas City Star that Kobach ’ s gubernatorial campaign “ was the most dysfunctional thing I ’ ve ever seen in my life.
” Kobach had transformed himself from the country ’ s most formidable racist into a buffoon , but his presence in American politics is no laughing matter .
Kobach ’ s losing streak is also a function of his radical agenda , which is so extreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal laws and the Constitution .
The Supreme Court struck down significant portions of Arizona ’ s SB1070 and refused to resurrect the law it inspired in Alabama .
But a Supreme Court full of Trump appointees might view things differently today .
Yes , there was his embarrassing performance as a trial lawyer , but Kobach failed to defend his own voter suppression law in Kansas because it , too , was unconstitutional .
A better lawyer , under a different judge , might have prevailed .
The longer Kobach , Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nationalist agenda , the more the bulwark of federal laws and Constitutional principles blocking their path will crumble .
The courts pushed back against the president ’ s first blunt attempts to ban immigrants from Muslim countries , but the Supreme Court allowed the third , sanitzed version of Trump ’ s travel ban to take effect .
If the Trump administration had been more sophisticated , and hadn ’ t tried to sabotage the 2020 census in a fashion truly reminiscent of Kobach ’ s own ineptitude , the Supreme Court would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , hubristic stumbles have thwarted the worst of Kobach and Trump ’ s goals .
But their stupidity won ’ t undercut them forever .
The Democrats who elevated Kobach in the hopes of winning a Senate seat in Kansas played with fire .
Losers are dangerous , too .
They can always become winners again .
Trump was a national laughing stock with a record of running businesses into the ground when he became president .
Democrats who prayed for Trump to win the Republican nomination in 2016 thinking it would benefit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a valuable lesson : Elevating authoritarian white nationalists can backfire .
By Republicans ’ own admittance , they don ’ t have a problem with a racist agenda as long as it wins votes .
Kobach ’ s ideas , particularly in the era of disinformation and polarization , catch fire .
Take Jeff Sessions , who was a backbencher in the Senate for 20 years but still managed to kill multiple bipartisan immigration bills and nurtured aides like Stephen Miller before Trump elevated him to attorney general , to devastating effect .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ prevailed , boosting their own chances of winning a long-shot Senate seat .
But they should be thankful that a dangerous demagogue will not become a senator any time soon .
Losers are only losers until they ’ re not .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Kris Kobach spent the final days of his primary campaign denying that he’s racist. “If I’m a white nationalist, I’m not a very good one,” Kansas’ notorious Republican Senate candidate said at his closing events. In fact, this statement is entirely true. Kobach has the record of a white nationalist, just one who has repeatedly bungled his agenda.
The reason Kobach found himself fending off questions about white nationalism is because his fellow Republicans accused him of having ties to white nationalists in a television ad blanketing Kansas’ airwaves. In a political world that is often sinister, this ad is, like Kobach’s response, an act of political honesty. “Why would Kris Kobach lose again in November?” the ad asks. “Kobach has strong ties to white nationalists.” The message is crystal clear: Kobach will lose to a Democrat in November, so vote against him in the primary.
Kobach hasn’t always bore the stench of loss.
Kobach shares an agenda with President Trump, one of a small cohort of national figures who can claim to be as anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, and pro-voter suppression as Trump. And he can boast that he was advocating these policies before Trump fully embraced that agenda. Republicans’ problem with Kobach isn’t necessarily his policies, it’s that in recent years, he’s become a loser. Republicans have openly admitted that they spent money to defeat him in the primary so that they didn’t have to spend even more money to help him win in November.
On Tuesday, those king-making Republicans got their wish. Kobach appears to have lost the primary to a more palatable Republican, Rep. Roger Marshall. The Republicans managed to dodge a bullet, though the Democratic nominee, Barbara Bollier, has proved a formidable candidate despite the state’s conservative leanings. Still, it was no mystery why Democrats preferred to run against Kobach.
In 2018, Kobach won a bruising Republican primary for governor by less than 400 votes, then went on to lose the general election to a Democrat by five points—an impressive loss for a Republican in deeply red Kansas. As a result, national Republicans, including Mitch McConnell, tried everything to keep Kobach off the ballot this November. First they courted Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, a former congressman from Wichita, to run. When that failed, they tried to get Trump to endorse one of Kobach’s opponents. Trump refused. Democrats also keyed onto Kobach’s weakness as a candidate, thinking Bollier would have a better chance against him. A group of Democrats, whose identity is not known, set up a super PAC and began to prop up Kobach’s lackluster campaign in the final weeks of the primary with at least $4 million in television ads. This prompted panic from Republicans, who also believe Kobach could lose to Bollier, who responded with $3.3 million in ads, including the one that painted him as a white nationalist.
Kobach hasn’t always bore the stench of loss, and his successes have harmed untold numbers of immigrants and people of color, as well as many other innocent people caught up in his machinations to enshrine a white ruling class in America. A lawyer educated at Harvard, Yale, and Oxford, Kobach has spent two decades dedicated to keeping nonwhite immigrants out of the United States and stopping people of color and other Democratic-leaning communities from voting. After September 11, he used a perch in the Justice Department to implement an anti-Muslim program in the name of counterterrorism that secured no known convictions on terrorist charges, but did lead to deportation proceedings against 14,000 Muslim men. Kobach has deemed it a “great success.”
He returned to Kansas in 2003, lost a race for Congress, and then spent the rest of the decade doing legal work to create and defend of nativist laws around the country while serving a stint chairing Kansas’s Republican Party. His proto-Trumpism included encouraging local police departments to enforce federal immigration statutes. This led to Kobach’s starring role in crafting SB1070, a notorious 2010 Arizona law that allowed local police to demand immigration papers of anyone they stopped. His national profile rose, and he wrote a similar anti-immigrant law for Alabama.
Too toxic to get an administration post, he launched a failed bid for governor in 2018. Despite Trump’s endorsement, the defeat was sufficient to brand him a loser.
In 2010, Kobach ran for Kansas secretary of state. “My hope is that Kansas will be to stopping election fraud what Arizona is to stopping illegal immigration,” he declared during his successful campaign. In office, Kobach championed two major voter suppression initiatives. The first was the Interstate Voter Registration Crosscheck Program, or Crosscheck, a database that ostensibly allowed states to compare voter registration files and flag people who may be registered in more than one state. There are successful programs that voting officials use to do this work, but Crosscheck especially excelled at boosting Kobach’s propaganda that voter fraud was undermining American elections while simultaneously helping him disenfranchise eligible voters who were chronically misidentified and removed from the rolls. Researchers at Stanford, Harvard, Yale, and the University of Pennsylvania did a statistical analysis of the program, finding that “200 legitimate voters may be impeded from voting for every double vote stopped.” Kobach managed the program so badly that it had a false positive rate of 99 percent, disproportionately affecting people of color. Kobach’s second major initiative was the Secure and Fair Elections Act, a state bill which required Kansans to show proof of citizenship, such as a passport or birth certificate, in order to register to vote. Again, Kobach claimed the law’s purpose was to prevent voter fraud, but all it did was prevent one in seven new voters from registering.
When Donald Trump became president, he falsely attributed his loss of the popular vote to voter fraud, then tapped Kobach to run a commission to investigate election integrity. The roadmap forward was clear: Kobach would back up the president’s lie, while using his position on the commission to push national voter registration restrictions like he had in Kansas and turn Crosscheck into a nationwide requirement. Republicans had control of the White House and both houses of Congress. Kobach-style voter suppression appeared on the brink of a major national breakthrough.
Instead, Kobach faltered spectacularly as his good luck quickly came to an end. The commission immediately ran into legal trouble for violating federal privacy and transparency laws. When Trump finally disbanded it in January 2018 to put an end to the commission’s legal woes, it faced 15 different lawsuits, including one from one of its own commissioners who had been kept out of the loop by Kobach and his allies.
Back in Kansas, things weren’t going any better. The ACLU was suing to block his proof of citizenship law and Kobach’s defense was going very poorly:
The trial…was supposed to showcase examples of what he claims are widespread voter fraud on the national stage. Instead, Kobach and his team repeatedly failed to follow basic rules of evidence, requiring the judge to lecture him on what she called “Evidence 101.”
In April of 2018, federal judge Julie Robinson held Kobach in contempt of court for failing to follow a court order to register Kansas voters. Two months later, she ruled that the proof of citizenship requirement violated both federal law and the US Constitution. She also ordered Kobach to take six hours of continuing legal education on how to introduce evidence at trial.
Meanwhile, states began to pull out of the Crosscheck program, which Kobach had only recently hoped would become national, over bad data. Privacy concerns led to a Department of Homeland Security audit and a class action lawsuit from the ACLU. In 2019, Kobach’s successor as Kansas secretary of state suspended the program indefinitely.
But Kobach wasn’t giving up. Too toxic by now to get a post in the Trump administration—not because Trump had any problem with him but because Senate Republicans might—he launched a bid for governor in 2018. Despite Trump’s endorsement, he came up short against Democrat Laura Kelly, a defeat big enough to sufficiently brand himself a loser. Nevertheless, Kobach decided to run for Senate in 2020.
Some of Kobach’s losing streak can be attributed to hubris. His farcical performance in court against the ACLU could have been avoided if he had not chosen to represent the law himself, a disastrous decision compounded by his failure to study up on how to conduct oneself during a trial. Given the chance to make voting more difficult for people of color on a national scale as the head of Trump’s voter integrity commission, he instead led it into oblivion by failing to follow basic federal privacy and transparency requirements. His failure to become governor in 2018 was in part attributable to a lazy campaign in which he reportedly refused to raise money or implement a basic get-out-the-vote program, relying instead on Trump’s endorsement and his frequent appearances on cable news. One GOP operative told the Kansas City Star that Kobach’s gubernatorial campaign “was the most dysfunctional thing I’ve ever seen in my life.”
The Democrats who elevated Kobach in the hopes of winning a Senate seat in Kansas played with fire.
Kobach had transformed himself from the country’s most formidable racist into a buffoon, but his presence in American politics is no laughing matter. Kobach’s losing streak is also a function of his radical agenda, which is so extreme that it is often in violation of federal laws and the Constitution. The Supreme Court struck down significant portions of Arizona’s SB1070 and refused to resurrect the law it inspired in Alabama. But a Supreme Court full of Trump appointees might view things differently today. Yes, there was his embarrassing performance as a trial lawyer, but Kobach failed to defend his own voter suppression law in Kansas because it, too, was unconstitutional. A better lawyer, under a different judge, might have prevailed.
The longer Kobach, Trump, and their allies push their white nationalist agenda, the more the bulwark of federal laws and Constitutional principles blocking their path will crumble. The courts pushed back against the president’s first blunt attempts to ban immigrants from Muslim countries, but the Supreme Court allowed the third, sanitzed version of Trump’s travel ban to take effect. If the Trump administration had been more sophisticated, and hadn’t tried to sabotage the 2020 census in a fashion truly reminiscent of Kobach’s own ineptitude, the Supreme Court would have allowed it. Again and again, hubristic stumbles have thwarted the worst of Kobach and Trump’s goals. But their stupidity won’t undercut them forever.
The Democrats who elevated Kobach in the hopes of winning a Senate seat in Kansas played with fire. Losers are dangerous, too. They can always become winners again. Trump was a national laughing stock with a record of running businesses into the ground when he became president. Democrats who prayed for Trump to win the Republican nomination in 2016 thinking it would benefit Hillary Clinton should have by now learned a valuable lesson: Elevating authoritarian white nationalists can backfire. By Republicans’ own admittance, they don’t have a problem with a racist agenda as long as it wins votes. Kobach’s ideas, particularly in the era of disinformation and polarization, catch fire. Take Jeff Sessions, who was a backbencher in the Senate for 20 years but still managed to kill multiple bipartisan immigration bills and nurtured aides like Stephen Miller before Trump elevated him to attorney general, to devastating effect.
Some Democrats may wish that Kobach had prevailed, boosting their own chances of winning a long-shot Senate seat. But they should be thankful that a dangerous demagogue will not become a senator any time soon. Losers are only losers until they’re not.


motherjones--2020-08-05--Trump Says He’s Improving Health Care. It Couldn’t Be Farther From the Truth.

In recent days , President Trump has attempted to paint himself as a champion of accessible health care .
On Monday , he held a press conference announcing new investments in rural hospitals and expanded telehealth services for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries .
And on July 24 , he signed a spate of executive orders promising to lower prescription drug costs and increase the importation of drugs .
All the while , his administration has condemned Democrats as enemies of consumer choice .
“ Democrats seek to deny Americans their health care freedom , ” White House Press Secretary Kayleigh @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump is working hard to save your health care by guaranteeing protections for people with preexisting conditions , eliminating the highly unpopular individual mandate of Obamacare , stopping surprise medical billing , increasing transparency , and lowering drug prices.
” While expanded telehealth services could be a boon for people covered by Medicare and Medicaid , Trump has attempted to cap the federal government ’ s Medicaid spending by instituting “ block grant ” waivers that allow states to cut back on care .
And Trump ’ s telehealth services do nothing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lack insurance because their states have not expanded Medicaid .
His executive orders for curbing drug prices turn out to be more PR than policy , offering minimal relief for a minority of Americans if and when they ’ re eventually implemented , NPR reports .
The measures are also unlikely to reduce prescription drug prices by 50 percent , as Trump has repeatedly claimed .
The order allowing the importation of lower-cost drugs from other countries , for example , could take months to implement ; another designed to lower Medicare patients @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , premiums , or patient ’ s out-of-pocket costs increase , meaning that the order will likely never go into effect .
Trump has also repeatedly and falsely claimed that he protects people with preexisting conditions .
Meanwhile , he has tirelessly attempted to undermine Obamacare regulations that do just that .
One thing is true : Trump helped eliminate the individual mandate—paving the way for a lawsuit that could jeopardize the entirety of the Affordable Care Act and leave the 23 million Americans currently covered by Obamacare uninsured .
The Trump administration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lawsuit brought by Republican attorneys general that argues that the loss of the individual mandate invalidates the entirety of the Affordable Care Act .
The Supreme Court will likely hear oral arguments on the case in the fall .
Trump has failed to release the alleged Obamacare replacement plan he has repeatedly promised .
Meanwhile , nearly 28 million non-elderly Americans were uninsured before the pandemic , and the United States remains dependent on an employment-based health care system that strips people of their coverage during an economic downturn caused by a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nonpartisan Families USA estimates that 5.4 million people lost their employer-based coverage along with their jobs ; when the Kaiser Family Foundation took into account the family members of the uninsured , the number who lost coverage jumped to 27 million .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
In recent days, President Trump has attempted to paint himself as a champion of accessible health care. On Monday, he held a press conference announcing new investments in rural hospitals and expanded telehealth services for Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries. And on July 24, he signed a spate of executive orders promising to lower prescription drug costs and increase the importation of drugs. All the while, his administration has condemned Democrats as enemies of consumer choice.
“Democrats seek to deny Americans their health care freedom,” White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany said Tuesday, “but President Trump is working hard to save your health care by guaranteeing protections for people with preexisting conditions, eliminating the highly unpopular individual mandate of Obamacare, stopping surprise medical billing, increasing transparency, and lowering drug prices.”
But Trump’s health care record paints a different picture.
While expanded telehealth services could be a boon for people covered by Medicare and Medicaid, Trump has attempted to cap the federal government’s Medicaid spending by instituting “block grant” waivers that allow states to cut back on care. And Trump’s telehealth services do nothing to aid the roughly 4.7 million Americans who lack insurance because their states have not expanded Medicaid.
His executive orders for curbing drug prices turn out to be more PR than policy, offering minimal relief for a minority of Americans if and when they’re eventually implemented, NPR reports. The measures are also unlikely to reduce prescription drug prices by 50 percent, as Trump has repeatedly claimed. The order allowing the importation of lower-cost drugs from other countries, for example, could take months to implement; another designed to lower Medicare patients’ premiums requires that neither federal spending nor premiums nor patients’ out-of-pocket costs increase, meaning that the order will likely never go into effect.
Trump has also repeatedly and falsely claimed that he protects people with preexisting conditions. Meanwhile, he has tirelessly attempted to undermine Obamacare regulations that do just that.
One thing is true: Trump helped eliminate the individual mandate—paving the way for a lawsuit that could jeopardize the entirety of the Affordable Care Act and leave the 23 million Americans currently covered by Obamacare uninsured. The Trump administration has supported Texas v. United States, the lawsuit brought by Republican attorneys general that argues that the loss of the individual mandate invalidates the entirety of the Affordable Care Act. The Supreme Court will likely hear oral arguments on the case in the fall. Trump has failed to release the alleged Obamacare replacement plan he has repeatedly promised.
Meanwhile, nearly 28 million non-elderly Americans were uninsured before the pandemic, and the United States remains dependent on an employment-based health care system that strips people of their coverage during an economic downturn caused by a global pandemic. A study by the nonpartisan Families USA estimates that 5.4 million people lost their employer-based coverage along with their jobs; when the Kaiser Family Foundation took into account the family members of the uninsured, the number who lost coverage jumped to 27 million.


motherjones--2020-08-06--New York Attorney General Sues to Dissolve the NRA

New York state Attorney General Letitia James ( D ) on Thursday filed a lawsuit charging the National Rifle Association with financial misconduct and seeking to dissolve the organization .
The NRA “ has persistently engaged in illegal and unauthorized activities in the conduct and transaction of its business , ” James alleged in the complaint .
For more than a year , James ’ office has been investigating the NRA ’ s nonprofit status , after the group ’ s inner turmoil and allegations of financial impropriety spilled into public view in 2019 .
During a press briefing announcing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the NRA “ is so broad ” that a total dissolution of the nation ’ s oldest gun rights group is necessary .
The groundbreaking lawsuit takes aim at the NRA as a whole but also names four current and former members of its leadership team—Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre , former Treasurer Wilson “ Woody ” Phillips , former Chief of Staff Joshua Powell , and General Counsel John Frazer .
In a statement , James said these individuals were personally responsible for mismanaging the organization ’ s funds and “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laws.
” The lawsuit details dozens of examples of the defendants allegedly using millions of dollars in NRA funds for exorbitant personal purposes—including for trips for their families to the Bahamas , private jet travel , and expensive meals .
In one instance detailed in the lawsuit , the NRA ’ s director of security “ procured an armored vehicle for LaPierre without notifying the Purchasing Division or complying with the NRA Purchasing Policy.
” “ The NRA ’ s influence has been so powerful that the organization went unchecked for decades while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pockets , ” James said in her statement .
“ The NRA is fraught with fraud and abuse , which is why , today , we seek to dissolve the NRA , because no organization is above the law.
” In response , the NRA said Thursday that it had filed a countersuit against the New York attorney general .
“ The NYAG ’ s actions are an affront to democracy and freedom , ” LaPierre said in a statement provided to Mother Jones .
“ This is an unconstitutional , premeditated attack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fiercest defender of America ’ s freedom at the ballot box for decades .
The NRA is well governed , financially solvent , and committed to good governance .
We ’ re ready for the fight .
Bring it on.
” In a statement provided to Mother Jones , NRA board member Tom King blamed New York Gov .
Andrew Cuomo ( D ) for James ’ lawsuit , despite the fact that the New York attorney general operates independently of the governor .
“ I was told Cuomo would use every resource @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the NRA , and an ‘ investigation ’ of our Association was on the horizon , ” King said .
The dam broke for the NRA in April 2019 , just before its annual meeting and convention in Indianapolis , when the New Yorker and The Trace published a bombshell report detailing alleged self-dealing , gratuitous spending , sweetheart deals , and other financial improprieties among the group ’ s executives , contractors , and vendors .
At the meeting , then–NRA president Oliver North—of Iran-Contra fame—unsuccessfully tried to force LaPierre ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the group ’ s finances .
The NRA board—including members who were allegedly secretly benefitting from NRA funds—stood behind LaPierre and instead forced North ’ s resignation .
North then leaked financial documents in an effort to expose self-dealing and misuse of NRA money .
That sparked James ’ investigation into the group , as well as calls from House and Senate Democrats for the IRS to revoke its nonprofit status .
James wasn ’ t the only official to sue the NRA Thursday .
Washington , DC , Attorney General Karl @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group , accusing it of misusing its charitable funds to support wasteful spending by its executives .
Racine ’ s lawsuit alleges that the NRA Foundation—the group ’ s tax-exempt charitable arm established to issue grants to outside entities like ROTC programs and the Boy Scouts of America—was , in fact , used to funnel money into the main NRA organization , including a $ 5 million dollar loan that the NRA never repaid .
Racine ’ s lawsuit seeks the return of “ the charitable funds improperly wasted on the NRA to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ changes to the Foundation to ensure it is operated independently and fulfills its charitable purposes , ” Racine ’ s office said in a statement .
The pair of lawsuits marks a new low point for the 148-year-old gun-rights organization , which has long exerted outsize influence in American politics .
In 2016 , the group spent an eye-popping $ 54 million backing GOP candidates , $ 31 million of which directly supported Donald Trump ’ s campaign .
But the group has been suffering ever since , thanks to its recent scandals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in membership .
“ Tens of millions of Americans have at one time or another joined the NRA to protect their Second Amendment rights , ” says Richard Feldman , a former lobbyist for the NRA and president of the Independent Firearm Owners Association .
“ The squandering of members ’ resources for the benefit of a few insiders has been known for years , but overlooked in the interests of power , prestige and politics.
” After it proved to be such a powerful ally to Trump in 2016 , there ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the NRA might play in the president ’ s reelection efforts .
With less than 100 days until the election in November , the group has spent just $ 900,000 on federal elections this cycle—a drop in the bucket compared to the pro-gun-control group Everytown for Gun Safety , which had earlier pledged to spend a whopping $ 60 million .
Earlier on Thursday , the Washington Free Beacon reported that the NRA is , in fact , planning to spend “ tens of millions ” to support Trump ’ s reelection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But with a series of pricey lawsuits on its hands and a precarious financial situation , it remains to be seen whether the group will be able to replicate the massive campaign it waged four years ago .
You can read the full lawsuit here :

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
New York state Attorney General Letitia James (D) on Thursday filed a lawsuit charging the National Rifle Association with financial misconduct and seeking to dissolve the organization. The NRA “has persistently engaged in illegal and unauthorized activities in the conduct and transaction of its business,” James alleged in the complaint. For more than a year, James’ office has been investigating the NRA’s nonprofit status, after the group’s inner turmoil and allegations of financial impropriety spilled into public view in 2019. During a press briefing announcing the lawsuit, James said that misconduct at the NRA “is so broad” that a total dissolution of the nation’s oldest gun rights group is necessary.
The groundbreaking lawsuit takes aim at the NRA as a whole but also names four current and former members of its leadership team—Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, former Treasurer Wilson “Woody” Phillips, former Chief of Staff Joshua Powell, and General Counsel John Frazer. In a statement, James said these individuals were personally responsible for mismanaging the organization’s funds and “failing to follow numerous state and federal laws.” The lawsuit details dozens of examples of the defendants allegedly using millions of dollars in NRA funds for exorbitant personal purposes—including for trips for their families to the Bahamas, private jet travel, and expensive meals. In one instance detailed in the lawsuit, the NRA’s director of security “procured an armored vehicle for LaPierre without notifying the Purchasing Division or complying with the NRA Purchasing Policy.”
“The NRA’s influence has been so powerful that the organization went unchecked for decades while top executives funneled millions into their own pockets,” James said in her statement. “The NRA is fraught with fraud and abuse, which is why, today, we seek to dissolve the NRA, because no organization is above the law.”
In response, the NRA said Thursday that it had filed a countersuit against the New York attorney general. “The NYAG’s actions are an affront to democracy and freedom,” LaPierre said in a statement provided to Mother Jones. “This is an unconstitutional, premeditated attack aiming to dismantle and destroy the NRA—the fiercest defender of America’s freedom at the ballot box for decades. The NRA is well governed, financially solvent, and committed to good governance. We’re ready for the fight. Bring it on.”
In a statement provided to Mother Jones, NRA board member Tom King blamed New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) for James’ lawsuit, despite the fact that the New York attorney general operates independently of the governor. “I was told Cuomo would use every resource to pursue his lifelong dream of defeating the NRA, and an ‘investigation’ of our Association was on the horizon,” King said.
The dam broke for the NRA in April 2019, just before its annual meeting and convention in Indianapolis, when the New Yorker and The Trace published a bombshell report detailing alleged self-dealing, gratuitous spending, sweetheart deals, and other financial improprieties among the group’s executives, contractors, and vendors. At the meeting, then–NRA president Oliver North—of Iran-Contra fame—unsuccessfully tried to force LaPierre’s resignation over the latter’s handling of the group’s finances. The NRA board—including members who were allegedly secretly benefitting from NRA funds—stood behind LaPierre and instead forced North’s resignation. North then leaked financial documents in an effort to expose self-dealing and misuse of NRA money. That sparked James’ investigation into the group, as well as calls from House and Senate Democrats for the IRS to revoke its nonprofit status.
James wasn’t the only official to sue the NRA Thursday. Washington, DC, Attorney General Karl Racine filed a complimentary lawsuit against the group, accusing it of misusing its charitable funds to support wasteful spending by its executives. Racine’s lawsuit alleges that the NRA Foundation—the group’s tax-exempt charitable arm established to issue grants to outside entities like ROTC programs and the Boy Scouts of America—was, in fact, used to funnel money into the main NRA organization, including a $5 million dollar loan that the NRA never repaid. Racine’s lawsuit seeks the return of “the charitable funds improperly wasted on the NRA to the Foundation and a court order imposing changes to the Foundation to ensure it is operated independently and fulfills its charitable purposes,” Racine’s office said in a statement.
The pair of lawsuits marks a new low point for the 148-year-old gun-rights organization, which has long exerted outsize influence in American politics. In 2016, the group spent an eye-popping $54 million backing GOP candidates, $31 million of which directly supported Donald Trump’s campaign. But the group has been suffering ever since, thanks to its recent scandals, which contributed to a sharp decline in membership.
“Tens of millions of Americans have at one time or another joined the NRA to protect their Second Amendment rights,” says Richard Feldman, a former lobbyist for the NRA and president of the Independent Firearm Owners Association. “The squandering of members’ resources for the benefit of a few insiders has been known for years, but overlooked in the interests of power, prestige and politics.”
After it proved to be such a powerful ally to Trump in 2016, there’s been much speculation about the role that the NRA might play in the president’s reelection efforts. With less than 100 days until the election in November, the group has spent just $900,000 on federal elections this cycle—a drop in the bucket compared to the pro-gun-control group Everytown for Gun Safety, which had earlier pledged to spend a whopping $60 million.
Earlier on Thursday, the Washington Free Beacon reported that the NRA is, in fact, planning to spend “tens of millions” to support Trump’s reelection and pro-gun Republican candidates in key battlegrounds. But with a series of pricey lawsuits on its hands and a precarious financial situation, it remains to be seen whether the group will be able to replicate the massive campaign it waged four years ago.
You can read the full lawsuit here:


motherjones--2020-08-06--A California State Senator Introduced a Bill Pushing LGBTQ Equality—and a QAnon Mob Came for Him

Scott Wiener is used to being targeted for his legislation .
The California State Senator represents San Francisco , and has long championed the kind of progressive reforms that have attracted the ire of right-wing culture warriors and their online trolling .
Over the past few days , the harassment Sen. Wiener has endured has gotten much worse .
QAnon troll accounts have sicced their rabid followers on him , latching on to a bill he ’ s introduced to reform California ’ s sex offender registry .
Current California law gives judges the discretion to not add people of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ technically be in violation of statutory rape laws .
The leeway allows judges to determine that in certain circumstances—say a 19 year-old having sex with a 17 year old—it would be inappropriate to add a person to the registry .
But the law only allows such discretion for people accused of vaginal intercourse with a minor ; judges have no say in instances of digital penetration , anal , or oral sex .
LGBTQ advocates argue the situation unfairly penalizes people who do not engage in penile-vaginal intercourse , a problem that Sen. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But low-level conservative blogs have written up misleading and exaggerated stories about the legislation saying that it would protect pedophiles and falsely claiming that it would mean a 22-year-old found to have sexual contact with a 12-year-old would not be placed on the registry .
The existing law does not automatically keep people off the registry .
It only allows judges additional discretion in making such decisions , and it does not apply to anyone found to have had sexual contact with someone younger than 14 .
Wiener ’ s proposed legislation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but would allow judges to treat different sexual acts equally .
Since Friday , Weiner has received thousands of messages targeting him for the bill , according to Catie Stewart , his communications director .
While some have come via email , most of the harassing messages are being sent through Instagram , both as private direct messages and as public-facing comments posted to his own Instagram account .
“ It ’ s a noticeable uptick , ” Sen. Wiener said in a phone interview , noting that about a month ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ involved harassment campaign over the same legislation .
“ The comments are gross .
There ’ s a ton of them .
They ’ re much , much nastier than what I ’ ve received before.
” The private messages he shared are indeed gross .
“ You ’ re dead .
Dead .
Dead .
Dead .
I ’ ll publicly execute you .
I ’ m gon na embarrass you .
Pedophile , ” wrote one Instagram user .
“ I ’ ll come cut your head off and deliver it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ introducing your ‘ bill.
’ Got it ?
” another read .
Many others posted publicly on Instagram are a little milder but still libelous and often anti-Semitic .
Users frequently accuse Sen. Wiener of being a “ pedophile ” and have lobbed other insults referencing his Jewish heritage .
Sen. Wiener said that he feels frustrated that Facebook , which owns Intsagram , is letting this happen .
“ Social media platforms need to do a lot more to deal with toxicity that is so damaging to society .
I know it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they don ’ t want to be thought police .
Not everything is clear cut , but some things are .
What ’ s happening here is clear cut , when you have all these comments calling me a pedophile , when you have all these homophobic , anti-Semitic remarks , ” Wiener said , adding that he feels like he ’ s at a disadvantage as it is illegal to block people on social media as a public official .
A Facebook spokesperson declined to comment for attribution on the incident or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their potential personal risk of QAnon harassment .
The specific sources inciting harassment against Sen. Wiener are mostly unclear , but the patterns and characteristics of the harassment indicate that it ’ s being driven by conspiracists , including supporters of QAnon , the sprawling theory that holds that a cabal of liberal elites has been running a massive pedophile ring that Donald Trump is working to take down .
One of the telltale signs of QAnon related harassment is a focus on child-trafficking and pedophilia—usually in the absence of any evidence .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ followers that Sen. Wiener ’ s campaign identified as attacking his account is run by a woman who lists her name as Denise Marie , and regularly shares posts indicating she is an ardent supporter of Pizzagate and other QAnon-styled pedophile conspiracy theories , along with other conspiracy theories about the coronavirus and 5G .
One of her posts attacking Sen. Wiener has shown up in other smaller conspiracy-posting accounts ’ stories , including accounts run by people backing QAnon .
It ’ s likely that other well-followed QAnon accounts posted about Sen. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , image-based structure of Instagram makes it hard to track how information flows across the platform .
Another potential source of harassment against Sen. Wiener is an article that appeared on a website called The California Globe , which purports to be a news site but posts conservative-slanted headlines like “ Sacramento : Typical Of Poorly Run Blue-Mayor Cities.
” A February 2019 article from the site with the headline “ CA Democrats Author Bill To Protect Sex Offenders Who Lure Minors ” has recently been making the rounds of right-wing Facebook pages @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Facebook-owned social media analytics tool .
Facebook pages like “ Republicans Take Back California ” and “ Recall Gavin Newsome ” started posting about it to their tens of thousands of followers towards the end of July .
A QAnon Facebook group with almost 23,000 followers also posted about it on July 24 , just about a week before QAnon supporters started targeting Sen. Wiener .
Another factor could be that more people than ever appear to be jumping on the QAnon bandwagon .
Under the coronavirus , by every metric , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interest around QAnon .
Twitter mentions of the conspiracy , Google searches related to it , and Wikipedia page views for QAnon topics have all seen massive spikes since mid-March when coronavirus lockdowns started in the U.S. And different types of people , using different tech platforms , are jumping in too .
Wellness influencers and anti-vaxxers have glommed onto QAnon child trafficking conspiracies , giving it an even wider base .
( Stewart said she had noticed many anti-vaxxers joining in the harassment against her boss . )
With more eyes on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s biggest influencers enjoy a rapt audience and have a ready troll army to unleash on their enemies .
Correspondingly , more and more people in the public eye and businesses have found themselves on the receiving end of QAnon harassment campaigns .
The contemporary moral panic has recently incited waves of harassment against Oprah , the online furniture seller , Wayfair , and even Chrissy Teigen .
Each has been baselessly accused of being wrapped up in different child trafficking schemes , and Teigen ’ s case falsely linked to Jeffery @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of doing these sorts of things stretches back further .
Travis View , an independent conspiracy theory researcher who co-hosts the podcast QAnon Anyonymous , explained that while what Wiener is going through is extreme , “ targeted harassment has been a core feature of QAnon almost since its inception.
” View recalled 2018 ’ s “ Operation Mayflower , ” in which Q followers regularly organized on Facebook to run coordinated harassment campaigns against perceived adversaries .
“ A consequence of the fact that there are more QAnon followers than two years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harassment is even greater now then back then , ” View added .
Sen. Wiener thinks it ’ s a serious problem that the technology companies have given conspiracy theorists and anyone willing to abuse their platforms a weapon , particularly when it is targeted to influence democracy .
“ Whether its QAnon or Russian troll farms , these are factories of false info designed to undermine democracy and public discourse .
And also to send a message to elected officials that if you pursue unpopular progressive change to help marginalized groups like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going to target you , ' ” he said .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Scott Wiener is used to being targeted for his legislation. The California State Senator represents San Francisco, and has long championed the kind of progressive reforms that have attracted the ire of right-wing culture warriors and their online trolling.
Over the past few days, the harassment Sen. Wiener has endured has gotten much worse. QAnon troll accounts have sicced their rabid followers on him, latching on to a bill he’s introduced to reform California’s sex offender registry.
Current California law gives judges the discretion to not add people of certain ages to the registry who may technically be in violation of statutory rape laws. The leeway allows judges to determine that in certain circumstances—say a 19 year-old having sex with a 17 year old—it would be inappropriate to add a person to the registry. But the law only allows such discretion for people accused of vaginal intercourse with a minor; judges have no say in instances of digital penetration, anal, or oral sex.
More people than ever are jumping on the QAnon bandwagon, and the conspiracy’s biggest influencers enjoy rapt audiences and ready troll armies.
LGBTQ advocates argue the situation unfairly penalizes people who do not engage in penile-vaginal intercourse, a problem that Sen. Wiener’s legislation aims to fix. But low-level conservative blogs have written up misleading and exaggerated stories about the legislation saying that it would protect pedophiles and falsely claiming that it would mean a 22-year-old found to have sexual contact with a 12-year-old would not be placed on the registry. The existing law does not automatically keep people off the registry. It only allows judges additional discretion in making such decisions, and it does not apply to anyone found to have had sexual contact with someone younger than 14. Wiener’s proposed legislation wouldn’t change anything regarding ages, but would allow judges to treat different sexual acts equally.
Since Friday, Weiner has received thousands of messages targeting him for the bill, according to Catie Stewart, his communications director. While some have come via email, most of the harassing messages are being sent through Instagram, both as private direct messages and as public-facing comments posted to his own Instagram account.
“It’s a noticeable uptick,” Sen. Wiener said in a phone interview, noting that about a month ago he had gone through a slightly less involved harassment campaign over the same legislation. “The comments are gross. There’s a ton of them. They’re much, much nastier than what I’ve received before.”
The private messages he shared are indeed gross. “You’re dead. Dead. Dead. Dead. I’ll publicly execute you. I’m gonna embarrass you. Pedophile,” wrote one Instagram user. “I’ll come cut your head off and deliver it to your mom if you even considering introducing your ‘bill.’ Got it?” another read.
Many others posted publicly on Instagram are a little milder but still libelous and often anti-Semitic. Users frequently accuse Sen. Wiener of being a “pedophile” and have lobbed other insults referencing his Jewish heritage.
Video Related: How QAnon Is Mutating for 2020
Sen. Wiener said that he feels frustrated that Facebook, which owns Intsagram, is letting this happen.
“Social media platforms need to do a lot more to deal with toxicity that is so damaging to society. I know it’s hard. I get that they don’t want to be thought police. Not everything is clear cut, but some things are. What’s happening here is clear cut, when you have all these comments calling me a pedophile, when you have all these homophobic, anti-Semitic remarks,” Wiener said, adding that he feels like he’s at a disadvantage as it is illegal to block people on social media as a public official.
“Social media platforms need to do a lot more to deal with toxicity that is so damaging to society.”
A Facebook spokesperson declined to comment for attribution on the incident or the company’s response, citing their potential personal risk of QAnon harassment.
The specific sources inciting harassment against Sen. Wiener are mostly unclear, but the patterns and characteristics of the harassment indicate that it’s being driven by conspiracists, including supporters of QAnon, the sprawling theory that holds that a cabal of liberal elites has been running a massive pedophile ring that Donald Trump is working to take down.
One of the telltale signs of QAnon related harassment is a focus on child-trafficking and pedophilia—usually in the absence of any evidence. At least one account with over 50,000 followers that Sen. Wiener’s campaign identified as attacking his account is run by a woman who lists her name as Denise Marie, and regularly shares posts indicating she is an ardent supporter of Pizzagate and other QAnon-styled pedophile conspiracy theories, along with other conspiracy theories about the coronavirus and 5G.
One of her posts attacking Sen. Wiener has shown up in other smaller conspiracy-posting accounts’ stories, including accounts run by people backing QAnon. It’s likely that other well-followed QAnon accounts posted about Sen. Wiener as well, but the splintered, image-based structure of Instagram makes it hard to track how information flows across the platform.
Another potential source of harassment against Sen. Wiener is an article that appeared on a website called The California Globe, which purports to be a news site but posts conservative-slanted headlines like “Sacramento: Typical Of Poorly Run Blue-Mayor Cities.” A February 2019 article from the site with the headline “CA Democrats Author Bill To Protect Sex Offenders Who Lure Minors” has recently been making the rounds of right-wing Facebook pages and groups, according to CrowdTangle, a Facebook-owned social media analytics tool. Facebook pages like “Republicans Take Back California” and “Recall Gavin Newsome” started posting about it to their tens of thousands of followers towards the end of July. A QAnon Facebook group with almost 23,000 followers also posted about it on July 24, just about a week before QAnon supporters started targeting Sen. Wiener.
“Targeted harassment has been a core feature of QAnon almost since its inception.”
Another factor could be that more people than ever appear to be jumping on the QAnon bandwagon. Under the coronavirus, by every metric, there has been a marked increase in interest around QAnon. Twitter mentions of the conspiracy, Google searches related to it, and Wikipedia page views for QAnon topics have all seen massive spikes since mid-March when coronavirus lockdowns started in the U.S. And different types of people, using different tech platforms, are jumping in too. Wellness influencers and anti-vaxxers have glommed onto QAnon child trafficking conspiracies, giving it an even wider base. (Stewart said she had noticed many anti-vaxxers joining in the harassment against her boss.)
With more eyes on Q than ever before, the conspiracy’s biggest influencers enjoy a rapt audience and have a ready troll army to unleash on their enemies. Correspondingly, more and more people in the public eye and businesses have found themselves on the receiving end of QAnon harassment campaigns. The contemporary moral panic has recently incited waves of harassment against Oprah, the online furniture seller, Wayfair, and even Chrissy Teigen. Each has been baselessly accused of being wrapped up in different child trafficking schemes, and Teigen’s case falsely linked to Jeffery Epstein.
But QAnon’s history of doing these sorts of things stretches back further. Travis View, an independent conspiracy theory researcher who co-hosts the podcast QAnon Anyonymous, explained that while what Wiener is going through is extreme, “targeted harassment has been a core feature of QAnon almost since its inception.” View recalled 2018’s “Operation Mayflower,” in which Q followers regularly organized on Facebook to run coordinated harassment campaigns against perceived adversaries.
“A consequence of the fact that there are more QAnon followers than two years ago is the intensity of the targeted harassment is even greater now then back then,” View added.
Sen. Wiener thinks it’s a serious problem that the technology companies have given conspiracy theorists and anyone willing to abuse their platforms a weapon, particularly when it is targeted to influence democracy.
“Whether its QAnon or Russian troll farms, these are factories of false info designed to undermine democracy and public discourse. And also to send a message to elected officials that if you pursue unpopular progressive change to help marginalized groups like queer kids, ‘We’re going to target you,'” he said.


motherjones--2020-08-06--A New Study Undercuts a Core GOP Argument in the Stimulus Negotiations

Congressional Republicans and White House officials have argued against extending the weekly $ 600 unemployment boost , which expired at the end of last month , by claiming that it paid people more than they were making at their jobs .
A study released Wednesday suggests that for most Americans , that isn ’ t true .
In June , Larry Kudlow , director of the National Economic Council , called the $ 600 checks a “ disincentive ” to work—a word later repeated by several GOP senators and by the president himself .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go back to work.
” Central to Republican claims is a study from University of Chicago economists , published in May , which found that 68 percent of unemployment recipients would earn more with the $ 600 weekly benefit than they did at their jobs .
Sen .
Rob Portman ( R-Ohio ) cited the Chicago study in a June press release , in media interviews , and on the Senate floor this week , as did Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin in a Sunday interview .
But an analysis published Wednesday by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Law Project ( NELP ) finds that the majority of recipients are likely making less than before because they ’ re now paying for benefits that were previously offered by their employers , including health care , leave , and retirement benefits .
The Chicago study did not factor these benefits into its analysis , instead looking exclusively at earnings .
“ Our inclusion of non-wage compensation is driven by our concern that measures of wage compensation do not paint a complete picture of all that workers lose when they are laid off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authors , Michele Evermore of NELP and Marokey Sawo of the Groundwork Collaborative .
The pair used Bureau of Labor Statistics data that tracks the previous industries of unemployment recipients , as well as BLS data that estimates the total cost of workers to employers in both salary and benefits across industries .
With these data sets , they were able to calculate the average hours of work per week in different industries , what sort of total compensation ( salary and benefits ) workers in these industries would have made on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the average benefit unemployment claimants are now receiving .
After crunching these numbers , they found that about 60 percent of unemployment claimants had worked in industries where the average total compensation was higher than what they ’ re collecting through unemployment .
“ In short , the majority of unemployed Americans could be doing worse , not better , financially in unemployment , ” write the authors .
“ We know for a lot of workers , your wages aren ’ t the only way you get compensated , ” says @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overall economic wellbeing , [ unemployment ] benefits are not this great windfall that we ’ ve been saying to justify the disincentives argument.
” Theirs is just the latest study to poke holes in the notion that the $ 600 unemployment boost is a work disincentive .
Research by Yale University economists found that the extra payments did not deter people from returning to work .
Another analysis by economists at the University of Pennsylvania , the Federal Reserve Bank of New York , and work search company Glassdoor found that employers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to fill their vacancies after the passage of the extra $ 600—in fact , applications per vacancy increased .
Congress continues to negotiate a coronavirus relief bill this week , with unemployment benefits as one of the biggest sticking points .
Last week , Republicans proposed lowering the $ 600 benefit to $ 200 per week temporarily , and then even further after September .
After additional debate with Democrats , they are now reportedly considering a package that would make the benefit $ 400 per week .
Democrats don ’ t want @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and most senators are likely to leave Washington on Thursday , leaving the deal-making to party leaders and the White House .
The last $ 600 payments went out to unemployment recipients last week .
Whatever numbers Congress eventually settles on will take weeks to work their way into aging and overwhelmed state unemployment systems and eventually household bank accounts .
NELP ’ s Evermore says this delay in benefits , coupled with the fact that , per their findings , many people were already making less on unemployment , will require families @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cause long-term damage .
“ This is exactly what we see happen in recessions , particularly when we cut off aid too quickly , ” says Evermore .
“ People make decisions now that end up hurting them for the rest of their lives , because they ’ re given a series of bad things to pick from : Do I not pay rent and maybe get kicked out ?
Or do I take my medicine ?
”

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Congressional Republicans and White House officials have argued against extending the weekly $600 unemployment boost, which expired at the end of last month, by claiming that it paid people more than they were making at their jobs. A study released Wednesday suggests that for most Americans, that isn’t true.
In June, Larry Kudlow, director of the National Economic Council, called the $600 checks a “disincentive” to work—a word later repeated by several GOP senators and by the president himself. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called the checks “a bonus not to go back to work.” Central to Republican claims is a study from University of Chicago economists, published in May, which found that 68 percent of unemployment recipients would earn more with the $600 weekly benefit than they did at their jobs. Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) cited the Chicago study in a June press release, in media interviews, and on the Senate floor this week, as did Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin in a Sunday interview.
But an analysis published Wednesday by the left-leaning Groundwork Collaborative and the National Employment Law Project (NELP) finds that the majority of recipients are likely making less than before because they’re now paying for benefits that were previously offered by their employers, including health care, leave, and retirement benefits. The Chicago study did not factor these benefits into its analysis, instead looking exclusively at earnings.
“Our inclusion of non-wage compensation is driven by our concern that measures of wage compensation do not paint a complete picture of all that workers lose when they are laid off,” write the study’s authors, Michele Evermore of NELP and Marokey Sawo of the Groundwork Collaborative.
The pair used Bureau of Labor Statistics data that tracks the previous industries of unemployment recipients, as well as BLS data that estimates the total cost of workers to employers in both salary and benefits across industries. With these data sets, they were able to calculate the average hours of work per week in different industries, what sort of total compensation (salary and benefits) workers in these industries would have made on the job, and how that amount compares to the average benefit unemployment claimants are now receiving.
After crunching these numbers, they found that about 60 percent of unemployment claimants had worked in industries where the average total compensation was higher than what they’re collecting through unemployment. “In short, the majority of unemployed Americans could be doing worse, not better, financially in unemployment,” write the authors.
“We know for a lot of workers, your wages aren’t the only way you get compensated,” says Sawo. “If you look at overall economic wellbeing, [unemployment] benefits are not this great windfall that we’ve been saying to justify the disincentives argument.”
“In short, the majority of unemployed Americans could be doing worse, not better, financially in unemployment,” write the authors.
Theirs is just the latest study to poke holes in the notion that the $600 unemployment boost is a work disincentive. Research by Yale University economists found that the extra payments did not deter people from returning to work. Another analysis by economists at the University of Pennsylvania, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and work search company Glassdoor found that employers did not have greater trouble finding workers to fill their vacancies after the passage of the extra $600—in fact, applications per vacancy increased.
Congress continues to negotiate a coronavirus relief bill this week, with unemployment benefits as one of the biggest sticking points. Last week, Republicans proposed lowering the $600 benefit to $200 per week temporarily, and then even further after September. After additional debate with Democrats, they are now reportedly considering a package that would make the benefit $400 per week. Democrats don’t want to budge on the $600, and most senators are likely to leave Washington on Thursday, leaving the deal-making to party leaders and the White House. The last $600 payments went out to unemployment recipients last week. Whatever numbers Congress eventually settles on will take weeks to work their way into aging and overwhelmed state unemployment systems and eventually household bank accounts.
NELP’s Evermore says this delay in benefits, coupled with the fact that, per their findings, many people were already making less on unemployment, will require families to make difficult spending choices that can cause long-term damage.
“This is exactly what we see happen in recessions, particularly when we cut off aid too quickly,” says Evermore. “People make decisions now that end up hurting them for the rest of their lives, because they’re given a series of bad things to pick from: Do I not pay rent and maybe get kicked out? Or do I take my medicine?”


motherjones--2020-08-06--To Prep Hospitals for Pandemics, Look to the Trauma System

As the world grapples with the devastation of the coronavirus , one thing is clear : The United States simply wasn ’ t prepared .
Despite repeated warnings from infectious disease experts over the years , we lacked essential beds , equipment , and medication ; public health advice was confusing , and our leadership offered no clear direction while sidelining credible health professionals and institutions .
Infectious disease experts agree that it ’ s only a matter of time before the next pandemic hits , and that could be even more deadly .
So how do we fix what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this Mother Jones series , we ’ re asking experts from a wide range of disciplines one question : What are the most important steps we can take to make sure we ’ re better prepared next time around ?
Asha George is a public health security expert who spent four years a congressional staff member with the House Committee on Homeland Security before working as a government contractor for the Department of Homeland Security .
As the current executive director of the Bipartisan Commission on Biodefense , she helped prepare a blueprint @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and respond to an infectious disease outbreak , whether from a naturally occurring pathogen or a biological weapons attacks .
She shared some of those recommendations with Mother Jones .
On the need for a stratified hospital system : You know how we have our national trauma hospital system ?
Every hospital has an emergency room—if you get into an accident , they ’ re going to take you there .
But if you need higher-level treatment , they ’ re going to fly you to a hospital with a high-level trauma rating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Medicaid , and then the rest of the health insurance providers follow along with that , too .
So we have a system in place for that .
We need to do the same thing for biodefense .
Every hospital should be able to take in patients with whatever disease we ’ re talking about , but if they need more advanced care , there should be other hospitals that can provide that advanced care , and they should get reimbursement for that care from Medicare , Medicaid , and all the other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the United States , all the hospitals wound up self-selecting and arranging themselves into a stratified biodefense hospital system .
This is the backwards way to do it .
First we have a disease , and then all the hospitals have to respond , and they all kind of sort themselves out .
And then somewhere months later , the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services decides , okay , so now we ’ ve decided we ’ re reimbursing .
I would like CMS to say to hospitals , in order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have to maintain a certain level of preparedness for pandemics , for disease events , for emergencies , and so forth .
You have to have a certain number of respirators and ventilators .
You have to have a certain number of gowns and loves .
I think that these emergency preparedness requirements need to be included in their standards .
It is an expense , but look at what happened .
They wound up spending way more than they ever would have if they ’ d have been prepared .
On private @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There ’ s this whole debate about overdependence on foreign countries for stuff we need , but we have to get used to the notion that we live in a global economy .
We do need to increase our capacity in terms of manufacturing here in the United States , so that we ’ re not entirely dependent on foreign countries for things we need .
In this case with the ventilators , that meant getting the auto manufacturers to produce ventilators instead of cars .
That obviously they could do that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t you think it would have been better if they had been prepared in advance to do that ?
They should be part of that planning .
On government preparedness : The federal government needs to get back on the stick when it comes to the national defense strategy .
I think the government needs to stop being in denial about the recurrence of infectious disease outbreaks and pandemics .
We need a robust , supported entity inside the White House—not just one person , but a group of people whose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we are preparing and we ’ re doing everything we can and managing the entire federal government so that when the next pandemic occurs , when the next biological attack occurs , the federal government can swing into action .
This interview has been edited for length and clarity .

As the world grapples with the devastation of the coronavirus, one thing is clear: The United States simply wasn’t prepared. Despite repeated warnings from infectious disease experts over the years, we lacked essential beds, equipment, and medication; public health advice was confusing, and our leadership offered no clear direction while sidelining credible health professionals and institutions. Infectious disease experts agree that it’s only a matter of time before the next pandemic hits, and that could be even more deadly. So how do we fix what COVID has shown was broken? In this Mother Jones series, we’re asking experts from a wide range of disciplines one question: What are the most important steps we can take to make sure we’re better prepared next time around?
Asha George is a public health security expert who spent four years a congressional staff member with the House Committee on Homeland Security before working as a government contractor for the Department of Homeland Security. As the current executive director of the Bipartisan Commission on Biodefense, she helped prepare a blueprint for how the nation should plan for and respond to an infectious disease outbreak, whether from a naturally occurring pathogen or a biological weapons attacks. She shared some of those recommendations with Mother Jones.
On the need for a stratified hospital system: You know how we have our national trauma hospital system? Every hospital has an emergency room—if you get into an accident, they’re going to take you there. But if you need higher-level treatment, they’re going to fly you to a hospital with a high-level trauma rating. They get reimbursement from Medicare and Medicaid, and then the rest of the health insurance providers follow along with that, too. So we have a system in place for that.
We need to do the same thing for biodefense. Every hospital should be able to take in patients with whatever disease we’re talking about, but if they need more advanced care, there should be other hospitals that can provide that advanced care, and they should get reimbursement for that care from Medicare, Medicaid, and all the other health insurance providers.
Hospitals wound up spending way more than they ever would have if they’d have been prepared.
When COVID-19 arrived in the United States, all the hospitals wound up self-selecting and arranging themselves into a stratified biodefense hospital system. This is the backwards way to do it. First we have a disease, and then all the hospitals have to respond, and they all kind of sort themselves out. And then somewhere months later, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services decides, okay, so now we’ve decided we’re reimbursing.
I would like CMS to say to hospitals, in order for you to be accredited, you have to maintain a certain level of preparedness for pandemics, for disease events, for emergencies, and so forth. You have to have a certain number of respirators and ventilators. You have to have a certain number of gowns and loves. I think that these emergency preparedness requirements need to be included in their standards. It is an expense, but look at what happened. They wound up spending way more than they ever would have if they’d have been prepared.
On private sector involvement in a biodefense strategy: There’s this whole debate about overdependence on foreign countries for stuff we need, but we have to get used to the notion that we live in a global economy. We do need to increase our capacity in terms of manufacturing here in the United States, so that we’re not entirely dependent on foreign countries for things we need.
In this case with the ventilators, that meant getting the auto manufacturers to produce ventilators instead of cars. That obviously they could do that, and they did do that, but don’t you think it would have been better if they had been prepared in advance to do that? They should be part of that planning.
On government preparedness: The federal government needs to get back on the stick when it comes to the national defense strategy. I think the government needs to stop being in denial about the recurrence of infectious disease outbreaks and pandemics. We need a robust, supported entity inside the White House—not just one person, but a group of people whose job it is to make sure that we are preparing and we’re doing everything we can and managing the entire federal government so that when the next pandemic occurs, when the next biological attack occurs, the federal government can swing into action.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.


motherjones--2020-08-05--Trump Says He’s Improving Health Care. It Couldn’t Be Further From the Truth.


motherjones--2020-08-08--Joe Arpaio Loses Bid for His Old Job, Just Barely

Joe Arpaio , the self-proclaimed “ toughest sheriff ” in the country , lost a shot at his old job in Arizona ’ s Maricopa County .
The 88-year-old ’ s defeat in the Republican primary for sheriff—by just a few thousand votes—is his third failed campaign in the past four years ; he was bested by his ex-chief deputy , Jerry Sheridan , who will face the Democratic incumbent , Paul Penzone , in the fall .
Arpaio might be done in Arizona GOP politics , but Arpaioism is not .
Tuesday ’ s primary wasn ’ t called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left to be counted , Sheridan had 37 percent of the vote to Arpaio ’ s 36 percent , a difference of 6,280 votes out of more than 420,000 votes cast .
Observers were watching the primary race in Arizona ’ s largest county , a Republican stronghold , for signs of President Trump ’ s fortunes in a state that ’ s tilting toward Joe Biden .
Arpaio had so aligned himself with the president that he ’ d plastered a giant photo of himself with Trump on the side of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ campaigned on the message “ Make Maricopa County Safe Again , ” and like a true Trumper , he downplayed the coronavirus pandemic by holding meet-and-greet events , not wearing a mask , and posing for photos with his followers without physically distancing .
What the narrow result might mean for Trump in November is anyone ’ s guess , but it can tell us a little about Arpaio and his legacy .
Arpaio led the sheriff ’ s department in Maricopa for 24 years until he lost a reelection campaign in 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ 90s for his flagrant and theatrical racism .
He vilified immigrants and Latinx people constantly , and his supporters loved him for it .
He set up the now infamous “ tent city ” where he kept inmates outdoors without any cooling in the summer ( with temperatures clocking in at 145 degrees inside the tents ) or heat in the winter .
He had male inmates wear pink underwear in hopes of humiliating them .
He made all inmates wear old-school black-and-white–striped prison uniforms and forced them to work in chain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a “ concentration camp.
” ( The tent city closed after Arpaio left his post in 2016 . )
Let ’ s not forget that , in 2017 , Arpaio was convicted of criminal contempt after ignoring a federal judge ’ s order from years prior to stop racially profiling Latinxs in Maricopa County .
But as we ’ ve seen a handful of times in the past few years , criminal convictions don ’ t really stick when you ’ ve got the president on your side .
In August 2017 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Trump pardoned his die-hard fan , calling him a “ patriot.
” The pardon set the stage for Arpaio ’ s unsuccessful bid to fill the US Senate seat left vacant by Jeff Flake .
Heading into Tuesday ’ s primary , Arpaio had raised more money than any of his rivals for the seat .
He ’ d also outraised Penzone .
As of February , at least , most of his large donations had come from out-of-state supporters .
The outcome suggests that Maricopa County Republicans have not totally lost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If anything , the votes cast for him and for his former chief deputy represented a fairly hearty endorsement of the ideology he embodies .
During the primary campaign , Sheridan took care to separate himself from Arpaio , saying he wasn ’ t in it for the media attention like his former boss was .
But Sheridan was in Arpaio ’ s leadership team when the sheriff ’ s office was riddled with controversy .
They worked so closely together that Sheridan , too , was convicted of contempt of court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
On his website , he promises to bring back the tent city “ in some form.
” If you were watching this election as a national bellwether for Trump , you might also keep an eye on what it augurs for Trumpism and the GOP .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
Joe Arpaio, the self-proclaimed “toughest sheriff” in the country, lost a shot at his old job in Arizona’s Maricopa County. The 88-year-old’s defeat in the Republican primary for sheriff—by just a few thousand votes—is his third failed campaign in the past four years; he was bested by his ex-chief deputy, Jerry Sheridan, who will face the Democratic incumbent, Paul Penzone, in the fall. Arpaio might be done in Arizona GOP politics, but Arpaioism is not.
Tuesday’s primary wasn’t called until Friday evening. With 2,385 ballots left to be counted, Sheridan had 37 percent of the vote to Arpaio’s 36 percent, a difference of 6,280 votes out of more than 420,000 votes cast.
Observers were watching the primary race in Arizona’s largest county, a Republican stronghold, for signs of President Trump’s fortunes in a state that’s tilting toward Joe Biden. Arpaio had so aligned himself with the president that he’d plastered a giant photo of himself with Trump on the side of his tour bus. For months, he campaigned on the message “Make Maricopa County Safe Again,” and like a true Trumper, he downplayed the coronavirus pandemic by holding meet-and-greet events, not wearing a mask, and posing for photos with his followers without physically distancing.
Meeting supporters everyday in the Arizona heat. I will never surrender! We must make Maricopa County Safe Again! pic.twitter.com/WQ9ggdaPYN — Sheriff Joe Arpaio (@RealSheriffJoe) August 3, 2020
Come join me tonight from 6-8pm at Il Capo Pizza- 7366 E Shea Blvd, Scottsdale, AZ 85260. Let's Make Maricopa County Safe Again! pic.twitter.com/NiQnTL7mpS — Sheriff Joe Arpaio (@RealSheriffJoe) July 24, 2020
What the narrow result might mean for Trump in November is anyone’s guess, but it can tell us a little about Arpaio and his legacy. Arpaio led the sheriff’s department in Maricopa for 24 years until he lost a reelection campaign in 2016. He gained national attention in the ’90s for his flagrant and theatrical racism. He vilified immigrants and Latinx people constantly, and his supporters loved him for it. He set up the now infamous “tent city” where he kept inmates outdoors without any cooling in the summer (with temperatures clocking in at 145 degrees inside the tents) or heat in the winter. He had male inmates wear pink underwear in hopes of humiliating them. He made all inmates wear old-school black-and-white–striped prison uniforms and forced them to work in chain gangs in what Arpaio himself described as a “concentration camp.” (The tent city closed after Arpaio left his post in 2016.)
Let’s not forget that, in 2017, Arpaio was convicted of criminal contempt after ignoring a federal judge’s order from years prior to stop racially profiling Latinxs in Maricopa County. But as we’ve seen a handful of times in the past few years, criminal convictions don’t really stick when you’ve got the president on your side. In August 2017, just months after Arpaio’s conviction, Trump pardoned his die-hard fan, calling him a “patriot.” The pardon set the stage for Arpaio’s unsuccessful bid to fill the US Senate seat left vacant by Jeff Flake.
Heading into Tuesday’s primary, Arpaio had raised more money than any of his rivals for the seat. He’d also outraised Penzone. As of February, at least, most of his large donations had come from out-of-state supporters.
The outcome suggests that Maricopa County Republicans have not totally lost their ardor for Arpaio since his heyday. If anything, the votes cast for him and for his former chief deputy represented a fairly hearty endorsement of the ideology he embodies. During the primary campaign, Sheridan took care to separate himself from Arpaio, saying he wasn’t in it for the media attention like his former boss was. But Sheridan was in Arpaio’s leadership team when the sheriff’s office was riddled with controversy. They worked so closely together that Sheridan, too, was convicted of contempt of court for racially profiling Latinx residents in Maricopa. On his website, he promises to bring back the tent city “in some form.” If you were watching this election as a national bellwether for Trump, you might also keep an eye on what it augurs for Trumpism and the GOP.


motherjones--2020-08-07--Remember When People Thought the June Medical SCOTUS Ruling Was a Win for Abortion Rights? Think Aga

Remember When People Thought the June Medical SCOTUS Ruling Was a Win for Abortion Rights? Think Again.

A court ruled on Friday that a strict abortion ban in Arkansas can move forward—and it used the recent Supreme Court decision regarding abortion rights , the one so many celebrated as a victory , to do it .
A panel of three judges—one of whom was appointed by President Donald Trump , the other two by previous Republican presidents—on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ’ s decision that would have blocked a law banning the most common procedure for second-trimester abortions , dilation and evacuation .
Citing Chief Justice John Roberts ’ concurrent opinion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russo case , they wrote that a package of anti-abortion laws that passed through Arkansas ’ legislature in 2017—one of which is inflammatorily dubbed the “ Arkansas Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Act ” —is allowed to stand because there is no established balancing test between the “ undue burden ” protection famously set in 1992 ’ s Planned Parenthood v. Casey and the Chief Justice ’ s contention that “ nothing according to Casey suggested that weighing of costs and benefits of an abortion regulation was a job for the courts , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ earlier this summer .
“ Pretending that we could pull that off would require us to act as legislators , not judges , ” the Eighth Circuit opinion says , quoting Roberts in the June Medical decision .
This decision a huge blow to the people of Arkansas—and to anyone across the country who supports the right to an abortion .
At the time the decision came down , I wrote that June Medical was not exactly the clear-cut win some people celebrated it as , and that Roberts ’ opinion made it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also worth noting that the precedent established in Whole Woman ’ s Health isn ’ t the only one Roberts is paying careful attention to .
“ One line that really caught my attention , ” [ Mary ] Ziegler , [ a professor at the Florida State University College of Law and the author of Abortion and the Law in America ] explains .
“ He said that the Casey court only struck down one abortion restriction ; in his view , that ’ s the undue burden test .
The undue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislators do most of what they want ” —in other words , it ’ s an ill-defined , subjective provision that unleashed a rat race in conservative legislatures to see who could get the closest to the line of creating an “ undue burden ” on women seeking abortions , without courting an expensive lawsuit that would ultimately kill the law in question .
Barely more than a month later , we ’ re already seeing how these complications can screw over women .
And this almost certainly won ’ t be the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to justify such anti-abortion shenanigans ; clearly , anti-abortion legal minds are paying attention to his signals .
The four laws in questions would have the power to inflict significant harm by banning dilation and evacuation , which is the most common ( and safe ) procedure for pregnant people who are past 14 weeks ’ gestation and make it a class D felony to perform ; there is no exception for rape or incest .
Another law in the package would also enable spouses , parents , or legal guardians to sue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obtain injunctions preventing the abortion to begin with .
The last two laws would regulate the disposal of fetal tissue and require physicians to obtain medical records before an abortion to somehow determine that the abortion isn ’ t motivated by sex selection .
“ All four of these laws severely interfere with access to abortion in Arkansas , ” says Ruth Harlow , the senior staff attorney at the ACLU ’ s Reproductive Freedom Project who argued the Arkansas case .
“ We are doing everything we can to make sure that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they don ’ t interfere with access to that essential health care , particularly during the COVID emergency.
” The ACLU also contends that the way the Eighth Circuit has so explicitly hung its decision on Roberts ’ opinion isn ’ t even legal .
“ One justice can ’ t overrule the Supreme Court , the majority , ” Harlow tells Mother Jones .
“ Instead of paying attention to just what the majority rule in June Medical ... they considered the dissents , along with Roberts , and that is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The ACLU and the Center for Reproductive Rights , which are arguing the case , now have 14 days to decide how they wish to proceed and file accordingly ; if they do nothing ( which is highly unlikely ) , the laws could take effect seven days after that at the earliest , on August 28 .

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.
A court ruled on Friday that a strict abortion ban in Arkansas can move forward—and it used the recent Supreme Court decision regarding abortion rights, the one so many celebrated as a victory, to do it.
A panel of three judges—one of whom was appointed by President Donald Trump, the other two by previous Republican presidents—on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court’s decision that would have blocked a law banning the most common procedure for second-trimester abortions, dilation and evacuation. Citing Chief Justice John Roberts’ concurrent opinion in the recent June Medical Services v. Russo case, they wrote that a package of anti-abortion laws that passed through Arkansas’ legislature in 2017—one of which is inflammatorily dubbed the “Arkansas Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Act”—is allowed to stand because there is no established balancing test between the “undue burden” protection famously set in 1992’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey and the Chief Justice’s contention that “nothing according to Casey suggested that weighing of costs and benefits of an abortion regulation was a job for the courts,” as Roberts wrote in his opinion earlier this summer. “Pretending that we could pull that off would require us to act as legislators, not judges,” the Eighth Circuit opinion says, quoting Roberts in the June Medical decision.
Roberts did NOT join the liberal bloc wholesale. He concurred, writing a very carefully crafted opinion recognizing that the Louisiana law in question was blatantly unconstitutional because of the court's 2016 ruling in Whole Women's Health. — Kate Smith (@byKateSmith) August 7, 2020
This decision a huge blow to the people of Arkansas—and to anyone across the country who supports the right to an abortion. At the time the decision came down, I wrote that June Medical was not exactly the clear-cut win some people celebrated it as, and that Roberts’ opinion made it much more complicated:
It’s also worth noting that the precedent established in Whole Woman’s Health isn’t the only one Roberts is paying careful attention to. “One line that really caught my attention,” [Mary] Ziegler, [a professor at the Florida State University College of Law and the author of Abortion and the Law in America] explains. “He said that the Casey court only struck down one abortion restriction; in his view, that’s the undue burden test. The undue burden test is a test that lets legislators do most of what they want”—in other words, it’s an ill-defined, subjective provision that unleashed a rat race in conservative legislatures to see who could get the closest to the line of creating an “undue burden” on women seeking abortions, without courting an expensive lawsuit that would ultimately kill the law in question.
Barely more than a month later, we’re already seeing how these complications can screw over women. And this almost certainly won’t be the last time Roberts’ opinion is used to justify such anti-abortion shenanigans; clearly, anti-abortion legal minds are paying attention to his signals.
The four laws in questions would have the power to inflict significant harm by banning dilation and evacuation, which is the most common (and safe) procedure for pregnant people who are past 14 weeks’ gestation and make it a class D felony to perform; there is no exception for rape or incest. Another law in the package would also enable spouses, parents, or legal guardians to sue physicians who perform abortions for damages and obtain injunctions preventing the abortion to begin with. The last two laws would regulate the disposal of fetal tissue and require physicians to obtain medical records before an abortion to somehow determine that the abortion isn’t motivated by sex selection.
“All four of these laws severely interfere with access to abortion in Arkansas,” says Ruth Harlow, the senior staff attorney at the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project who argued the Arkansas case. “We are doing everything we can to make sure that they continue to be enjoined, and that they don’t interfere with access to that essential health care, particularly during the COVID emergency.”
The ACLU also contends that the way the Eighth Circuit has so explicitly hung its decision on Roberts’ opinion isn’t even legal. “One justice can’t overrule the Supreme Court, the majority,” Harlow tells Mother Jones. “Instead of paying attention to just what the majority rule in June Medical...they considered the dissents, along with Roberts, and that is something you can’t do.”
The ACLU and the Center for Reproductive Rights, which are arguing the case, now have 14 days to decide how they wish to proceed and file accordingly; if they do nothing (which is highly unlikely), the laws could take effect seven days after that at the earliest, on August 28.