

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Reproductive rights advocates came together on Capitol Hill Tuesday morning to combat misinformation used by Republican lawmakers to push anti-choice legislation--including a bill currently before Congress that would impose a nationwide 20-week abortion ban.
"Instead of listening to the expertise of medical organizations, healthcare providers, and the real-life situations of patients and families, anti-abortion politicians used this hearing to spread misinformation and stigma about abortion care."
--Dr. Kristyn Brandi, PRH
Pro-choice advocates' demands to #StopTheBans and #EndTheLies came in response to a 10am Senate Judiciary Committee hearing called by Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to promote the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (S.160), which the senator has sponsored since 2013.
"This hearing is a political stunt that has real consequences," said Dr. Kristyn Brandi of Physicians for Reproductive Health (PRH).
"Instead of listening to the expertise of medical organizations, healthcare providers, and the real-life situations of patients and families, anti-abortion politicians used this hearing to spread misinformation and stigma about abortion care," Brandi added. "This is plain wrong."
Under Graham's proposed legislation, a healthcare provider who performs or attempts to perform the procedure after 20 weeks post-fertilization could be fined, jailed for up to five years, or both. The only exceptions for the time limit would be to save the life of the pregnant person and cases of rape or incest.
Graham claimed during his opening remarks at the hearing that "there is significant scientific evidence that abortion inflicts tremendous pain on the unborn child" and once Americans "understand" that, there will be widespread support for banning the procedure after 20 weeks.
Critics took issue with both his claims about public opinion and medical science:
Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who denounced the bill as unconstitutional and dangerous, argued that "today's debate is not about passing legislation to improve medical care--it's about advancing an ideological agenda."
Challenging Graham's claims about pain, Feinstein quoted from a memo by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which says that "the fetus does not even have the physiological capacity to perceive pain until at least 24 weeks of gestation."
FactCheck.org, after reviewing relevant research and speaking with several experts, concluded in 2015 that "a firm starting point for pain in the developing fetus is essentially impossible to pin down, and that definitive claims regarding pain perception at 20 weeks are unfounded."
Rev. Katherine Ragsdale, head of the National Abortion Federation, noted that "this is not the first time that lies demonizing abortion providers and the women they help have found such fertile ground," recalling the 1980s and 1990s, when "politicians looking for an issue to fundraise on, began spreading misinformation and lies about abortion providers that are echoed today."
"This language went unchecked and abortion providers were targeted by anti-choice extremists who were told they were stopping murderers. Shootings began. Fires. Bombings. A kidnapping. People chained themselves in an attempt to block clinic doors. I remember because I was there and so were many of our members," she said. "It is time for anti-choice politicians and extremists to tell the truth."
Reproductive rights advocates took to Twitter to debunk lies from the GOP lawmakers and their anti-choice witnesses, and emphasize the ultimate goal of "sham" hearings like this one:
Fatima Goss Graves, president and CEO of the National Women's Law Center (NWLC), charged that the hearing "makes patients' lives and health care a political game."
"It is another blow in the Trump-Pence administration's all-out attempt to gut Roe, outlaw abortion, and criminalize women for controlling their own bodies," Graves said. "The provocative, inaccurate lies about abortion being spread by this administration and its allies completely strip pregnant people of their dignity and medical needs, putting their health in jeopardy."
Pro-choice advocates also celebrated the testimonies of Valerie Peterson--who shared her story of terminating a pregnancy due to serious fetal abnormalities--and Georgia state Sen. Jen Jordan, a Democrat who has garnered national attention for speaking out against her state's pending "heartbeat" bill.
Georgia is one of several states that bans abortions at 20 weeks--at least, until Republican Gov. Brian Kemp signs the heartbeat bill. As Jordan pointed out, the state also has devastatingly high rates of maternal mortality--the worst in the United States, which ranks last among developed countries in terms of pregnancy-related deaths.
During the hearing, Sen. Mazie K. Hirono (D-Hawaii) highlighted how abortion bans disproportionately impact people of color and those living in poverty. She also pointed out that many of the politicians fighting to roll back reproductive rights have also attacked other healthcare legislation and programs, from the Affordable Care Act to Medicaid.
"If politicians truly want to create a safe, just society, they should focus their time and attention on passing legislation that expands access to healthcare," concluded Brandi. "They should be passing the EACH Woman Act, supporting Medicaid expansion, ensuring young people have comprehensive sex education, reducing the maternal mortality rate, instituting paid family leave, and eliminating discrimination against pregnant people."
Sexual assault survivors and their supporters are appalled by the Trump administration's decision on Friday to roll back federal protections for students who are assaulted on college campuses.
After months of meeting with "men's rights" groups and taking steps to overhaul enforcement rules for Title IX, the federal law barring sex-based discrimination in schools, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos suspended current guidelines and issued new ones that enable schools to increase standards of proof when disciplining students accused of sexual misconduct--guidance that experts, advocates, and survivors warn "will have a devastating impact on students and schools."
"This misguided directive is a huge step back to a time when sexual assault was a secret that was swept under the rug."
--Fatima Goss Graves, National Women's Law Center
"It will discourage students from reporting assaults, create uncertainty for schools on how to follow the law, and make campuses less safe," said Fatima Goss Graves, president and CEO of the National Women's Law Center.
"This misguided directive is a huge step back to a time when sexual assault was a secret that was swept under the rug," she said. "Hundreds of thousands of parents, students, alumnae, and school officials know what's at risk and have strongly urged the department to keep the guidance in place. It's reckless to ignore these voices."
DeVos said in a statement Friday that the move "will help schools as they work to combat sexual misconduct, and will treat all students fairly."
The interim guidance withdraws a 2011 Dear Colleague letter (pdf) that advised schools adjudicating sexual assault cases to apply a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, which requires more than 50 percent of evidence to support accusations. Now, schools may instead opt to use a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard, a more rigorous standard that's harder to prove, which critics warn will allow those who commit crimes to avoid punishment.
It also rescinds a Title IX and sexual violence Q&A document (pdf) issued by the Department of Education in 2014, and replaces it with a new one (pdf). The guidance is a temporary precursor to new rules that are in development, but require public notice and comment.

Lawyers and leaders of advocacy groups immediately expressed concern that under the interim guidance, and whichever permanent policies that follow, student survivors will be less inclined to report assaults, and perpetrators won't be held accountable.
"Today, Betsy DeVos and the Trump administration chose to tip the scales in favor of rapists and perpetrators," said Sofie Karasek, co-founder of End Rape on Campus.
"DeVos has tried to silence survivors by keeping us out of this process," Karasek continued. "With this recision, she is giving schools the go-ahead to deny survivors the right to appeal cases, drag cases on until assailants graduate, let rapists have a 'mediation' with the person they violated, and use a different evidentiary standard that gives a default advantage to perpetrators."
"Weakening guidance about and enforcement of campus sexual assaults is a horrific step back for crime victims' rights and for public safety more broadly."
--Michael Dolce, attorney
Michael Dolce, a Florida-based attorney who represents sexual assault victims, called the decision "reckless, unjustified, and completely unnecessary," and told The Hill he believes the guidance will discourage victims from reporting sex crimes.
"Weakening guidance about and enforcement of campus sexual assaults is a horrific step back for crime victims' rights and for public safety more broadly," Dolce said. "The move will also encourage colleges and universities to reduce, rather than increase, efforts to combat sex crimes--efforts that are already substandard and ineffective on numerous campuses across the country."
Brenda Shum, director of the Educational Opportunities Project at the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law said that "with her decision to pull the guidelines, Secretary DeVos has created a culture of confusion across the country that puts the civil rights of students in jeopardy."
Vowing to take legal action "if the Department of Education issues regulations inconsistent with Title IX," Shum added that "if Secretary DeVos genuinely listens to public comments and input, it will further demonstrate the need for rigorous enforcement of the protections against sex discrimination."
The announcement on Friday triggered a deluge of condemnation on Twitter, with many using the #StopBetsy hashtag.
Beginning this weekend, the anti-abortion group Operation Save America will descend on Louisville, Kentucky, in an attempt to shut down the last abortion clinic in the state, EMW Women's Surgical Center. The group has targeted EMW, whom the ACLU represents, before. In May, 10 of its members were arrested when they linked hands to block the entrance of the clinic and refused to move when asked to do so by law enforcement.
Beginning this weekend, the anti-abortion group Operation Save America will descend on Louisville, Kentucky, in an attempt to shut down the last abortion clinic in the state, EMW Women's Surgical Center. The group has targeted EMW, whom the ACLU represents, before. In May, 10 of its members were arrested when they linked hands to block the entrance of the clinic and refused to move when asked to do so by law enforcement. Abortion protesters have the First Amendment right to protest outside a clinic on public property, but they do not have the right to interfere with anyone's access to the clinic.
OSA planned to stage a week of protests in front of EMW, starting tomorrow, with the goal of shutting the center down. But today, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order against leaders of OSA and their associates, barring them from entering a buffer zone outside EMW's entrance. Since the restraining order only applies to OSA leaders and associates, the protests will continue. There to assist patients of the center will be the Louisville Clinic Escorts, a group of volunteers who accompany women to the doors of the clinic, often in the face of insults and shouting. Their help is an invaluable part of the center's fight to stay open and protect essential services for the women of Kentucky.
The ACLU caught up with Meg Stern, one of the Louisville Clinic Escorts, earlier this week to talk about her work. She is a Louisville native and works for the Kentucky Health Justice Network. This interview has been edited for clarity and length.
I started escorting in 1999 with a group of friends because I had learned that the protests were taking place and that the escorts were a thing. At the time, it was a very small group of folks, and I wanted to show up and do what I could because I didn't think that that type of harassment was an okay thing for people to have to endure.
There have been a number of things that have affected what's gone on on the sidewalk. There have been new regulations on abortion access in addition to the closing of the satellite clinics that EMW had open until this past January in Lexington, at which point the Louisville clinic became the only one in the state. In general, we've seen an increase in attendance at this clinic because it's the only one. The protesters are aware that Gov. Matt Bevin is interested in trying to close this clinic as well. They see our clinic as low-hanging fruit in their mission to create a state with no clinics.
Our website has a page called "points of unity." They talk about things like focusing on de-escalation, not making assumptions. We always ask for consent from our clients every time. And that includes, "Do you want me to walk with you?" to, just based on body language, "If you want to grab my arm, you may." We never make assumptions, and we focus a lot on consent from the clients and their companions.

Yeah, some people say no. Sometimes they change their minds pretty quickly. Escorts are stationed throughout the entire area surrounding the clinic, so it's a pretty busy downtown road, especially on weekdays. And there's no onsite parking for the clients, so they have to park either at a street meter or in a parking garage nearby. They have no option but to walk up the public sidewalk through a literal gauntlet, occasionally it looks more like an obstacle course, of people with signs. Often there are small children playing in the middle of the sidewalk. They create blockades. We have photos of all of the above, including protesters doing things like pressing signs into the faces of the escorts as the escort practices non-engagement.
If a patient declines an escort, absolutely we will respect that, and if they start walking on their own sometimes they will sort of realize that they're getting swarmed by people that aren't asking consent from them, and inevitably they will have gotten to a point in the sidewalk where there are more escorts, and those escorts will also check in and ask, "Do you want me to walk with you?"
The clinic lets people know that there are protesters and escorts. They don't go really deeply into what it's going to look like because they have so much other information that they're having to deliver about the medical care. Some people do find our blog or our Facebook page. We get messages from people either asking questions before they accompany someone in or thanking us for being there.
So we start to arrive close to 7 a.m., sometimes a little bit earlier if we're expecting a big crowd. Escorts arrive, park, and just immediately report to their post. Sometimes people line up along the property line to hold space to allow people to pass from the sidewalk to the private property without being obstructed. Some people station themselves at a corner or at a parking lot. And then we hang around, the clinic opens at 8, so we have some downtime, during which time the protesters take advantage of the fact that we are a captive audience for them, and that's when there's plenty of preaching, or they try to goad us into a debate, especially if they notice new escorts or they are new protesters.
Sometimes that can turn into aggression. So we do our best to not engage during that amount of time, and we make sure that we are holding space in such a way that clients will be able to see us and let them know, "Hey, I'm a volunteer, there's other people that are in orange vests that are happy to walk with you."
I escort on Saturdays for the most part. On an average Saturday, we will see between 50 and 70 protesters, somewhere around 20 or 25 escorts, and the number of clients varies, but usually between 15 to 25.
I sometimes feel intimidated. I've definitely been grabbed out there. I'm 5'3. There are people that are much, much bigger than me that use their bodies and that can be really scary.
So, fear, on occasion, but that's not the prominent feeling that I have. Honestly, they make me angry. I have years and years of experience, and also training, so I'm not going to act on that anger in any way. If anything it helps me practice de-escalation for myself because that's one of the skills that we have to practice outwardly. I've had people ask me if they should bring their guns out of the car. We have to practice de-escalation, so it starts with me.
We have clients that run their mouths to the protesters the entire time, which is their right as well. Sometimes they'll get to the property line and say their piece and get it off their chest and turn around triumphantly and walk inside. We have people who just want to put on their sunglasses and their hood and keep their head down, so it really runs the gamut as far as reactions go.
Sometimes people have to bring their kids with them, and those are particularly hard walks because the protesters get really vicious in those situations. We do have ways around that, and we'll give options, like we'll offer to sit in cars with the kids. It's all about asking consent, providing options, letting the client make the decision that feels best for them.
My first experience with them was in winter when they came and were really aggressive. It was one of their leadership convenings, so I already had an idea of how nasty they and their tactics are.

We're used to signs. Our regular protesters use big signs that are 2 feet wide and 4 feet tall, and they use those to create blockades or raise them up in the air and take up a lot of visual space. Operation Save America had a 12-foot wide sign that 3 people had to hold, and it had swastikas and lynching pictures on it. They also set up a baby coffin on the sidewalk.
It was the day before Mother's Day. We've seen as many as 500 protesters on that holiday. We were aware that OSA was in town and that it was going to be a big day. I do not tend to station myself near the door. I'm good at talking with clients and walking with them. I'm not so good at being around a bunch of bullies. So I was not near the area when the sit-in happened. However, I did walk up to it with a client. We had gotten the signal that the doors were open. I was the only escort with this individual, and she was nervous. We were walking in the street because the sidewalk was congested. We sometimes find that to be the path of least resistance.
So when we got to the clinic, I noticed that there were about 50 people crowded on the door area. And I noticed that people had their arms up, cameras filming, and so instead of going onto the sidewalk from the other side of the line of parked cars, I was like, "Okay, so it looks to me like there's some trespassing going on, so we're just going to keep walking past here and circle back to your car until the police can get this situation under control."
We've been working very closely with EMW staff as well as local and federal law enforcement. The National Abortion Federation and Feminist Majority Foundation have been engaged for a long time helping support security at the clinic. Clinic Escorts' volunteers have also received special training. We're doing a little bit more intensive points of unity and practice reinforcement than usual.
Probably about 60.
Over the last 12 months, 2,658 patients opted to complete a survey moments after walking past the protesters. Over 87 percent were disturbed by the protesters in some way. Patients described being blocked, intimidated, touched, and shoved. Nearly half of them said they felt scared, threatened, or unsafe, and more than a third of the respondents considered confronting the protesters.
It is nice that people are starting to pay attention to what has been going on and how it's been getting worse. We are all volunteers, so it's been really challenging to juggle the amount of media requests we're getting and offers of support from people who truly are our allies, but we specifically ask that people do not come and counter protest because that would just make the situation more chaotic and possibly escalate things.
We are running a fundraiser right now called "pledge a picketer" where people can fill out a Google form and pledge to give a certain amount either per protester or per arrest. Or they can make a flat contribution that benefits our legal defense fund. And also we have our legal committee in place and a legal defense fund in the event that an escort ends up having to face criminal or civil charges because of these protesters.
If people want to support us, the fundraiser is the best way as well as just reading and sharing our blog everysaturdaymorning.net blog, which features our three-part series, "Where Would They Go?". Those are the best ways to support us.
Several hundred protesters, led by the organizers of January's Women's March, rallied in front of the National Rifle Association's Virginia headquarters Friday, before beginning a two-day 18-mile march to the Department of Justice for a 10am vigil Saturday.
Undeterred by the hot weather--D.C. has declared a "heat emergency" in response to scorching temperatures and intense humidity--demonstrators carried American flags and signs with messages including "We Will Not Be Silenced."
Women's March organizers announced the #NRA2DOJ actions last week, in response to a set of highly publicized NRA videos that cast the anti-Trump resistance and other recent social justice protests as violent, and pushed a clear "us against them" narrative. Organizers have called on the NRA to remove and apologize for the initial video which they say, "suggests armed violence against communities of color, progressives, and anyone who does not agree with this Administration's policies."
The NRA has responded with more videos that feature African-Americans condeming the Women's March as "fake feminism," and the Black Lives Matter movement as "a weaponized race-baiting machine pushing the extreme liberal Democratic agenda." (Black Lives Matter Los Angeles responded to the NRA's videos last week.) Conservative talk radio host Dana Loesch--the star of the initial video--verbally attacks the Women's March organizers themsevles.
The NRA's recent incendiary videos aren't the only motivator for the march, as the Washington Post reported:
Demonstrators also protested the NRA for its silence following the acquittal of a Minnesota police officer in the killing of Philando Castile, a black man and legal gun owner who was shot in his car after he told the officer he was carrying a licensed firearm. Critics accused the NRA of only standing up for white gun owners.
On an FAQ page for this weekend's actions, the Women's March organizers said:
When many of us called on the NRA to take action in response to the Philando Castile trial verdict--in line with their stated mission and purpose--the response was not only silence but the resurfacing of an NRA ad featuring right wing propagandists and deeply divisive, "us versus them" language, appearing to be a direct endorsement of violence against women, our families, and our communities for exercising our constitutional right to protest.
This morning's rally outside NRA headquarters included the reading of a statement from Philando Castile's mother, and a speech by Pulse nightclub shooting survivor Brandon Wolf.
In addition to the D.C. march, there are more than a dozen solidarity actions taking place across the country Friday and Saturday. Organizers have also encouraged gun violence survivors to share their stories on social media, using the hashtag #NRA2DOJ. There has been an outpouring of support from political and women's groups nationwide.
Ahead of anti-choice protests set to take place Saturday at Planned Parenthood clinics across the country, the Feminist Majority Foundation has released a new report showing violence and threats of violence against abortion providers has dramatically increased in the last two years.
"This weekend, Planned Parenthood is the target," foundation president Ellie Smeal said of planned actions demanding the defunding of Planned Parenthood. "The public must be aware that this is no ordinary protesting... This hostile climate at women's health clinics and towards health care workers is accompanied by an increase in severe violence and threats."
The foundation's report found that the number of clinics that experienced the most severe types of threats and violence, including death threats, stalking, and blocking clinic access, dramatically increased from 19.7 percent of providers in the first half of 2014 to 34.2 percent of providers in the first half of 2016.
It was in 2015 that anti-abortion activists produced a series of heavily edited (and since debunked) videos that ostensibly showed Planned Parenthood workers negotiating the sale of fetal body parts. That smear campaign has been used as the basis for a national effort to defund the healthcare organization.

"This is just not tolerable behavior in a democracy," Smeal told the Huffington Post. "This would never happen to men walking into a medical clinic."
In some locations, women's health advocates are planning rallies to counter Saturday's actions, as in Kalamazoo, Michigan.
But Huffington Post associate women's editor Jenavieve Hatch reported earlier this week on how for some clinics, "showing up to counter protest isn't actually helpful."
"Our goal is making sure our patients are comfortable," Adrienne Verrilli, associate vice president of communications at Planned Parenthood of New York City, told Hatch. "The quieter it is outside, and the less people are engaging with each other, the better it is for our patients."
A separate pro-Planned Parenthood rally has been organized to take place elsewhere in New York City on Saturday.
The Feminist Majority Foundation produced this video to accompany its report:
Update, 8:10pm EST:
President Donald Trump has nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the empty seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.
In accepting the nomination at the podium in the White House, Colorado federal appeals court judge Gorsuch called the late Justice Antonin Scalia "a lion of the law." Indeed, many have noted that Gorsuch follows in Scalia's footsteps; of all the potential justices scored on the Washington Post's "Scalia scale," Gorsuch scored highest.
Democrats in Congress and progressive advocacy groups--incensed that the Republican-led Senate never acted on former President Barack Obama's nominee Merrick Garland--have vowed to fight Trump's pick.
Once Gorsuch's name emerged, those cries grew louder.
Cesar J. Blanco, political director of the Latino Victory Project, said "Gorsuch's track record on women's reproductive rights and issues of discrimination and police brutality suggests he doesn't have all of our interests in mind nor that he could be independent of advancing Trump's agenda and saying no to him once he goes too far.
"The radical actions taken so far by the president--including his discriminatory executive order on refugees and immigrants--make clear that the next justice to the Supreme Court must be willing to serve as a check on extremist and unconstitutional policies that undermine our system of self-governance and our justice system," Blanco continued. "Republicans have been rewarded for their obstructionism and refusal to confirm Judge Garland. It is a sad day in our democracy, and Republicans celebrating the success of their obstructionism should be ashamed of themselves."
Annie Leonard, executive director of Greenpeace, said the choice proved the Trump administration and Republican lawmakers have their "priorities backward" when it comes to serving the American people.
"Empowered by spineless Congressional Republicans and an incompetent and malicious Trump administration," said Leonard, Gorsuch "could inflict serious damage to people in this country. Since the Trump administration has made it clear it will only make America great for corporate interests, everyday Americans must now work harder than ever with the growing resistance movements and their allies in Congress and the courts to actually make America great for all of us."
Democrats in the Senate, added Leonard, "can rest assured that they will have the support of the people in filibustering this appointment."
Earlier:
President Donald Trump is expected to announce his Supreme Court nominee at 8pm Tuesday evening, and the resistance is mobilizing.
| #scotus Tweets |
Filmmaker Michael Moore and other progressive organizations put out the call early Tuesday encouraging people to rally outside their local federal courthouse to make their opposition to Trump's pick known.
"We need to go in large numbers to our local federal site at 7pm ET tonight to protest his pick whom he's promised will make abortion illegal," Moore wrote. "Call your local media to let them know you're going to be there. Take pix and video and post them on social media. We must be loud and present on this most important issue on this most important night."
At the same time, a coalition of groups--including MoveOn, NARAL Pro-Choice America, People For the American Way, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Alliance for Justice Action Campaign, and the Center for American Progress Action Fund--will be protesting on the steps of the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. while in New York City the National Action Network is planning to rally outside Trump Tower.
Inside the corridors of power, Democrats are also gunning for a fight after Senate Republicans' historic obstruction of President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Merrick Garland.
"This is going to be a huge fight over the country, as it should be," Marge Baker, executive vice-president People For the American Way, told the Guardian.
"The events of the last week demonstrate how important it is to have open and fair-minded courts," Baker continued, referring to the confusion and opposing views that surround Trump's Muslim ban. "Judging by the list of folks in the running for the nomination, that is not what we have."
According to "people familiar with the president's decision process," Trump has summoned his two finalists--Neil Gorsuch of Denver or Thomas Hardiman of Pittsburgh--to Washington, D.C. for the announcement as to who will fill the seat of late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
The Guardian reports:
A federal judge on the 10th circuit court of appeals in Denver, Gorsuch believes the constitution should be interpreted as the founding fathers intended, an approach Scalia championed. Gorsuch is a believer in religious freedom and sided with the Christian organizations in a case about whether the Affordable Care Act could compel them to provide contraceptives under insurance cover.
Hardiman, who sits on the third circuit court of appeals in Philadelphia, has advanced conservative interpretations of the law, particularly in "law and order" cases touching on issues such as sentencing guidelines and the death penalty. In a dissent, Hardiman argued that the first amendment did not grant the right to film police officers.
Anticipating that Trump will follow through on his vow and "appoint anti-choice Supreme Court justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade," NARAL Pro-Choice America is also circulating a petition calling on senators to "ensure that Trump's Supreme Court nominee upholds the Constitution" and, "if not, commit to blocking the nominee by whatever means necessary."
As Moore and others have noted, Scalia's seat is only the first Supreme Court vacancy likely to be filled by Trump as Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony Kennedy, and Stephen Breyer are all at least 78 years old.
What's more, as Climate Central's John Upton pointed out on Monday, "A broad refusal by Senate Republicans to approve judicial nominees during the last two years of Obama's second term means Trump could move quickly to fill 114 vacant federal judge positions. U.S. Courts data shows that to be the most vacancies in at least 20 years."
Glenn Sugameli, an attorney for the nonprofit Defenders of Wildlife, told Upton that this creates "more opportunities for bad judges to get confirmed, for bad decisions to be issued, and for courts to tilt."
Or put more ominously, as Moore did: "This will damage the country for the rest of (many) of our lives."
Fast-food executive Andrew Puzder, who opposes raising the federal minimum wage and "has championed every aspect of right-wing trickle-down economics," is expected to be President-elect Donald Trump's pick for labor secretary, news outlets reported Thursday.
Puzder is the chief executive of CKE Restaurants, which includes the burger chains Hardee's and Carl's Jr. among its brands. He advised and fundraised for Trump during his presidential campaign, and reportedly told a Fox Business news anchor shortly before the election that serving in a Trump administration would be "the most fun you could have with your clothes on."
"Puzder's got his fellow CEOs' backs, even if it breaks the backs of those at the bottom."
--Christine Owens, National Employment Law Project
In fact, Patriotic Millionaire Fred Rotondaro wrote in a recent blog post: "Puzder is a minor league version of Trump: the stereotype of a loud talking business leader convinced he has done everything on his own and knows what he knows with absolute certitude. There are no shades in his business style."
His appointment to head the Department of Labor, The American Prospect warned on Thursday, "will give the regulation-averse corporate lobby yet another fierce ally in Trump's White House."
As such, the reaction from organized labor and worker advocacy groups was swift--and fierce.
SEIU International president Mary Kay Henry said Puzder's intended nomination exposes Trump as "out-of-touch...with what working Americans need."
"Throughout his career, Andrew Puzder has shown he does not believe in the dignity of all work and has used his position to line his own pockets at the expense of workers," Henry said. "In 2012, Puzder made $4.4 million, a full 291 times more than the average food worker. He doesn't support measures that would help families who work hard build a better life, such as the overtime rule, which would put more money in the pockets of millions of workers for the extra work they do. He wants machines to replace workers because robots 'never take a vacation'--even though robots can not ever replace the work that people do. He has stood with Republican congressional leaders who want to repeal the Affordable Care Act--even though his underpaid workers and millions of working Americans depend on it for healthcare."
Christine Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project, put it even more bluntly: "[B]ased on Mr. Puzder's own comments, it's hard to think of anyone less suited for the job of lifting up America's forgotten workers--as Trump had campaigned on--than Puzder," she said.
"After a long campaign of promising to return prosperity and good jobs to struggling families, this pick makes it clear that Trump won't drain the swamp--he'll fill it with worse and worse kinds of slime."
--Randi Weingarten, American Federation of Teachers
"This much is clear," Owens continued. "Puzder will be there for his low-wage-industry CEO buddies, who are now salivating over the prospect of rolling back the Obama administration's efforts to raise pay for low-wage workers, improve workplace safety, and increase corporate accountability for wage theft and other violations. Puzder's got his fellow CEOs' backs, even if it breaks the backs of those at the bottom."
In a statement from the Fight for $15 movement, Carl's Jr. cook Rogelio Hernandez from Santa Monica, California and Hardee's cashier Lacretia Jones from Richmond, Virginia, spoke from experience--while vowing to keep up their struggle:
Putting one of the worst fast-food CEOs in charge of national labor policy sends a signal to workers that the Trump years are going to be about low pay, wage theft, sexual harassment, and racial discrimination. Instead of taking on the rigged economy, it seems like Trump wants to rig it up even more. Puzder is paid more in one day than we each make in one year working at his restaurant chains, and that's the way he wants to keep it. Puzder is against unions, calls the minimum wage and overtime 'restrictions' and employees 'extra cost,' and even said he wants to fire workers like us and replace us with machines that can't take vacations or sue their employers when they break the law. It doesn't matter who the labor secretary is, the Fight for $15 won't back down for one minute in our demands for $15 an hour and union rights for all workers. If Trump is going to be a President for the fast food corporations instead of for the fast food workers he is going to be on the wrong side of history.
American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten also said the selection of Puzder highlighted Trump's hypocrisy:
Donald Trump promised repeatedly to stand up for the little guy, to fight for working families, to create good jobs and a booming economy. By picking Andrew Puzder to be secretary of labor, the president-elect makes a mockery of those promises and puts the Department of Labor--which was created to help workers--squarely in the hands of the titans of corporate America.
[...] Considering Trump's own record--buying cheap, overseas steel and aluminum for his properties and putting Americans out of work; saying wages are 'too high'; fighting tooth and nail to stop his workers in Las Vegas from forming a union; stiffing small-business owners; and pledging to take healthcare from 20 million Americans by repealing the ACA--it's clear that he and Puzder are cut from the same cloth.
While this comes as no surprise, it is deeply disappointing. After a long campaign of promising to return prosperity and good jobs to struggling families, this pick makes it clear that Trump won't drain the swamp--he'll fill it with worse and worse kinds of slime.
And the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights described Puzder as "anti-family, anti-worker, and anti-jobs."
"This man is an opponent of jobs that make America great and put food on the table," said the coalition's president and CEO Wade Henderson. "He opposes fair wages, he opposes overtime pay, he opposes sick days, and he opposes health care benefits--all of which have a great impact on working class families, communities of color, and women."
As Fight for $15 organizing Kendall Fells told The Prospect: "Puzder as labor secretary is like putting Bernie Madoff in charge of the treasury. Does it really make America great again if it pushes more low-wage workers into poverty?"
Meanwhile, the New York Times noted that Trump's choice of Puzder "may raise questions anew about his attitude toward women," given negative responses to "racy" advertisements for Puzder's Carl's Jr. burger chain.
"I like our ads. I like beautiful women eating burgers in bikinis. I think it's very American," Puzder said in a 2015 interview with Entrepreneur magazine.
Additional reactions poured in on social media, including under the hashtag #AntiLaborSecretary:
Every few months, I do an Internet search for my name, as recommended by a media-savvy colleague. In the past I've found myself in all the predictable places -- among a list of doctors who graduated from my residency program, on my employer's Web site, in various social-media posts. But in the stillness of a warm evening this past August, after putting my daughter to bed, I found myself in a new and terrifying place: an anti-choice Web site that claims I am part of an "abortion cartel." In addition to my office address and links to find my medical license numbers, it features several photos of me. In one of the photos, taken from social media, I'm holding my then-15-month-old daughter.
Though the site claims to be "informational" in nature, the real purpose is clear. There is no better way to intimidate and incite fear than to target a family member, especially a child. The message is unambiguous: I'm being watched, and so is my daughter.
I am an obstetrician-gynecologist. Among the many medical services I provide my patients, I also perform abortions for women who need them. That's made me a target for harassment online and in person over the course of my career. Unfortunately, my experience is not the exception among my colleagues who perform what the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled is a legal medical procedure in all 50 states.
Before I moved my practice to D.C., I worked in a family-planning clinic in Minnesota, where security guards had to escort doctors, nurses and other employees from our cars while anti-choice extremists wrote down our license plate numbers and took photographs. After a while, I stopped hearing the wild accusations and prayers they shouted at staff and patients alike. When a new clinic building was constructed, it included an enormous locking gate, a tall perimeter fence and secure underground parking.
This extraordinary level of security is simply not necessary at any other kind of medical facility, because this kind of abusive behavior doesn't happen in other fields.
On Twitter and Facebook, I'm not shy about the fact that I am an OB-GYN. I believe physicians must engage in public discourse wherever it is happening, and we must be voices for evidence-based medicine both in and out of the office. There is still an incredible amount of stigma surrounding abortion and other reproductive health issues, and I hope that doctors' willingness to share their stories will help women feel empowered to share theirs. The people who harass me and other doctors tell me that I have blood on my hands, that "Satan awaits" me and that I will get what I "deserve" for providing a constitutionally protected, necessary medical service. The Internet makes it easy and virtually anonymous to issue these inflammatory and threatening statements.
As a mother, it is especially difficult to shoulder this risk as a cost of doing my job. When I am out in public, I remain intensely aware of my surroundings: Every time I turn the ignition key in my car, there's a fraction of a second of panic that someone may have planted a bomb. On public transit, if strangers' gazes linger for more than a few seconds, I wonder if they recognize me and if their intentions are sinister. I fear for the safety of my child. I worry that protesters may someday show up at her day care, focused on hurting her as a way to punish me. Seeing her face on the anti-choice Web site made me consider that maybe she would be safer living apart from me and that my presence in her life might cause her more harm than good. While I refuse to be intimidated from doing my job, this assault on my confidence as a mother has been particularly distressing.
Numerous colleagues have similar stories. On social media, I've witnessed friends and mentors called murderers, Nazis, racists and whores. The threats can be vague ("I hope someone does to you what you do to babies") or terrifyingly specific ("I know where you live, and someday I might show up at your doorstep").
Too often, these threats are not all talk: In the past two decades, 13 physicians or staff members at abortion-providing facilities have been killed or seriously injured.
In September in picturesque Pullman, Wash., a city of 30,000, someone snuck up to a Planned Parenthood clinic in the middle of the night. The arsonist smashed a window, then tossed in what was later described as a firebomb. Thankfully, there were no injuries, but the health center now needs to be rebuilt, leaving patients without a place to get needed care. A federal terrorism task force is investigating.
In New Orleans, firefighters were called in August to respond to a car fire within the locked gates of a Planned Parenthood construction site. The intended target: a clinic that will provide abortions as well as other preventive and reproductive health services. This month, someone broke into a Planned Parenthood clinic in Claremont, N.H., and used a hatchet to destroy computers, phones and medical equipment.
We already know what abortion-provider violence looks like at its worst. In Kansas, physician George Tiller was subject to protests at his clinic for years. Eventually, the protesters also targeted his home and his church. His clinic was bombed. In 1993, he was shot in both arms; he courageously returned to work. In 2009, he was murdered while in the supposed safety of his place of worship, handing out the church bulletin. He was the fourth abortion provider killed since 1993.
Fortunately, attacks of this magnitude are rare. But they should not exist at all -- especially not as a response to trained, committed health-care professionals providing a legal, essential service that (by some estimates) 1 in 3 women will obtain during their lifetimes.
Last year, a survey conducted for the Feminist Majority Foundation found that nearly 20 percent of clinics have been subject to the most severe types of anti-abortion violence, including stalking, facility invasions and blockades. More than half of the clinics surveyed reported some form of intimidation, one-quarter of them on a daily basis. A small minority of clinics, 12 percent, reported never experiencing anti-abortion activity.
Family planning is a specialty. In addition to medical school and OB-GYN residency, family-planning specialists have fellowship training that includes years of in-depth instruction on how to provide all methods of abortion care safely and effectively.
But family-planning specialists must also be trained in non-medical skills. National advocacy organizations have had to develop curricula to address security issues (the National Abortion Federation began offering seminars in risk management 35 years ago). Physicians, nurses and clinic staffers are taught to identify suspicious phone calls. We learn how to screen people who might be posing as patients but who are actually trying to infiltrate the safety of the clinic. We have protocols and run emergency drills to prepare for a bomb threat or a shooting.
As hard as it is for physicians and staff who work at these clinics, the impact isn't just on providers. When patients are confronted by threats and intimidation, some of them are too frightened to enter the clinic to get the care they need. These women deserve empathetic, respectful care -- which is what my colleagues and I have studied and practiced for years to give them -- not judgement, and not violence. Targeting clinics also prevents women from getting other essential medical services, from cancer screenings to ultrasounds to sexually transmitted-infection testing and treatment.
I chose to become an abortion provider because I respect the autonomy of women, and I trust them to decide what's best for themselves and their families. Because I understand why women want to finish school, to start careers. Because I believe every child should be cherished, and because I value the ability to plan whether and when to have a family. I chose to do this because of pregnancies that didn't turn out as anticipated and because of women whose lives and health must be protected.
I stand by what I do. I know that it is contentious. But threats and violence are not the appropriate way to debate. Americans of good conscience can disagree about the morality of abortion, but we should all agree that no physicians ought to be terrorized for doing their jobs.
Fighting back against discriminatory policies that block low-income and minority women from accessing a full range of reproductive health care coverage, three U.S. lawmakers on Wednesday introduced a bill that "would finally guarantee every woman can get the reproductive health care she needs, no matter how much money she makes or where she lives."
"None of us, especially elected officials, should be interfering with a woman's right to make her own healthcare decisions just because she is poor."
--Rep. Barbara Lee, of California
The Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance (EACH Woman) Act--co-sponsored by Congresswomen Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), and more than 60 other representatives (all Democrats)--has the enthusiastic backing of women's rights and social justice groups including the Center for Reproductive Rights, Planned Parenthood, Feminist Majority, and the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health (NLIRH).
It would restore coverage for abortion services to women enrolled in insurance plans and programs offered or managed by the federal government, including Medicaid, Medicare, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, Indian Health Services, and TRICARE, the federal health care program for military families.
In doing so, its proponents point out, the EACH Woman Act would essentially put an end to the Hyde Amendment, a policy prohibiting federal Medicaid coverage for abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment.
First passed in 1976, the Hyde Amendment "creates an often insurmountable barrier to abortion services for women across the country already struggling to get affordable healthcare, and disproportionately affects those who are low-income, people of color, young, immigrants, or who live in rural communities," according to the NLIRH.
"Each and every day, the rights of women are under attack in America--today, we push back because every person has a right to healthcare," Rep. Lee said in a statement. "The EACH Woman Act is a bold and groundbreaking step forward. This legislation would ensure that every woman can access ALL of her healthcare options, regardless of how much money she earns or where she lives."
Lee added: "Regardless of how someone personally feels about abortion, none of us, especially elected officials, should be interfering with a woman's right to make her own healthcare decisions just because she is poor."
"Year after year, the Hyde Amendment bans Medicaid coverage of abortion and denies those who are struggling financially the same full-spectrum reproductive health care available to other women. Through Hyde and other funding restrictions, too many women have been forced to decide between an abortion they cannot afford or continuing a pregnancy they do not want."
--Miriam Yeung, National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum
In an op-ed published Wednesday in The Hill, National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum executive director Miriam Yeung echoed that sentiment.
"Should a woman's ability to decide whether to become a parent depend on how much money she has or where she lives?" Yeung asked.
"That a woman could be forced to carry a pregnancy to term simply by virtue of the fact that she cannot afford to do anything else is a tragedy that has been happening for nearly as long as abortion has been legal," Yeung continued.
"Year after year, the Hyde Amendment bans Medicaid coverage of abortion and denies those who are struggling financially the same full-spectrum reproductive health care available to other women," she wrote. "Through Hyde and other funding restrictions, too many women have been forced to decide between an abortion they cannot afford or continuing a pregnancy they do not want."
To illustrate the real world implications, the National Abortion Federation, in its statement of support, shared the story of Reeda, who lives in Virginia and is a working mother of two:
Unfortunately, even though Reeda decided an abortion was the right choice for herself and her family, Reeda's Medicaid would not cover her abortion care. Reeda began trying to gather enough resources to pay for her procedure, but even with borrowing from her sister, selling what she could, and having someone else pay for her transportation, she did not have enough money. The NAF Hotline was able to help cover the cost of the procedure, but because the nearest abortion provider was more than 150 miles away, Reeda still had to find a way to pay for childcare during her procedure and a hotel. At the last minute, Reeda was able to borrow money from a family member in order to travel and obtain the care she needed and had been trying to obtain.
Furthermore, Yeung added: "The long list of women affected by these bans includes not only those who are enrolled in Medicaid, but also those who work for the government or defend our country, as well as women who receive their insurance through someone else who does. More recently, this list has extended to include women who live in the ten states where anti-choice policymakers have barred all insurance plans from covering abortion."
To that end, the legislation would also prevent federal, state, and local governments from restricting insurance coverage of abortion in private health insurance plans, including plans purchased on health insurance exchanges created through the Affordable Care Act.
The Guttmacher Institute revealed earlier this year that not only do many states retain the option to ban abortion coverage in marketplace plans outright, half of all 50 states have already done so. What's more, "individuals were largely unable to obtain clear, consistent information on whether a given plan covered or excluded abortion," according to a 2014 Guttmacher analysis.
"Antiabortion policymakers and advocates are exploiting this lack of publicly available information on abortion coverage to call for new legislation that purportedly advances transparency, but is actually aimed at discouraging--if not eliminating--abortion coverage altogether," the organization explained.
The EACH Woman Act aims to counter this type of attack on women's health.
"Politically motivated attacks on women's access to abortion must end," declared Feminist Majority policy director Gaylynn Burroughs on Wednesday. "The EACH Woman Act takes a huge step forward by preventing politicians from playing games with women's lives by deciding which services their health insurance can and cannot cover. No matter where you live, how much money you make, or how you get your insurance, women should be able to make basic health decisions about their lives, without government interference."
While attempts to overturn the Hyde Amendment have been stymied in the past, the bill's backers were quick to point out that their proposal currently enjoys widespread and growing support.
"A majority of Americans agree that a woman enrolled in Medicaid should have all her pregnancy-related healthcare covered by her insurance, including abortion services," said Jessica Gonzalez-Rojas, executive director of NLIRH. "And among young people and people of color, that opinion is a tidal wave. We are ready to change the game in Washington. We are organized, making phone calls, knocking on doors, and paying visits to our members of Congress. We are ready to do what it takes to make Hyde history."
Advocates are tweeting about the proposed legislation under the hashtag #4EACHofUs:
You know what I don't want to hear right now about the Stupak-Pitts amendment banning abortion coverage from federally subsidised health insurance policies? That it's the price of reform, and pro-choice women should shut up and take one for the team.
"If you want to rebuild the American welfare state," Peter Beinart writes in the Daily Beast, "there is no alternative" than for Democrats to abandon "cultural" issues like gender and racial equality. Hey, Peter, Representative Stupak and your 64 Democratic supporters, Jim Wallis and other anti-choice "progressive" Christians, men: Why don't you take one for the team for a change and see how you like it?
For
example, budget hawks in Congress say they'll vote against the bill
because it's too expensive. Maybe you could win them over if you
volunteered to cut out funding for male-exclusive stuff, like prostate
cancer, Viagra, male infertility, vasectomies, growth-hormone shots for
short little boys, long-term care for macho guys who won't wear
motorcycle helmets and, I dunno, psychotherapy for pedophile priests.
Men could always pay in advance for an insurance policy rider, as women
are blithely told they can do if Stupak becomes part of the final bill.
Barack Obama,
too, worries about the deficit. Maybe you could help him out by
sacrificing your denomination's tax exemption. The Catholic church
would be a good place to start, and it wouldn't even be unfair, since the blatant politicking of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops on abortion violates the spirit of the ban on electoral meddling by tax-exempt religious institutions.
Why
should anti-choicers be the only people who get to refuse to let their
taxes support something they dislike? You don't want your tax dollars
to pay, even in the most notional way, for women's abortion care, a
legal medical procedure that one in three American women will have in
her lifetime? I don't want to pay for your misogynist fairy tales and
sour-old-man hierarchies.
Women Democrats have taken an awful lot
of hits for the team lately. Many of us didn't vote for Hillary Clinton
in the primary because the goal of electing a woman seemed less
important than the goal of electing the best possible president. Only a
self-hater or a featherhead didn't feel some pain about that. And
although women are hardly alone in this, we've seen some pretty big
hopes set aside in the first year of the Obama administration.
The
Paycheque Fairness Act, which would expand women's protections against
sexism in the workplace, is on the back burner. Meanwhile, the Office
of Faith-Based and Neighbourhood Partnerships is not only alive and
well. It's newly staffed with anti-choicers like Alexia Kelley of
Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, which, as Frances Kissling
notes in Salon, has compared abortion to torture.
I
know what you're thinking: conservative Democrats like Stupak took
Republican districts to win us both houses of Congress. Thanks a lot,
Howard Dean, whose bright idea it was to recruit them. But those
majorities would not be there, and Obama would not be in the White
House, if not for pro-choice women and men - their votes, talent,
money, organisational capacity and shoe leather.
We knocked ourselves out, and it wasn't so that religious reactionaries like Stupak - who, as Jeff Sharlet writes in Salon, is a member of the Family,
the secretive rightwing Christian-supremacist congressional coven -
would control both parties. Elections have consequences, you say?
Exactly: Obama, the pro-choice, pro-woman candidate, won. Stupak didn't
put him in the White House, and neither did the Catholic bishops or the
white anti-feminist welfare staters of Beinart's imagination.
We did. And we deserve better from Obama than sound bites like "this is a healthcare bill, not an abortion bill". Abortion is healthcare. That's the whole point.
What
makes the Stupak fiasco especially pathetic is the fumbling response
from pro-choicers. Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill would not be in
the Senate today were it not for pro-choice and feminist supporters
like Emily's List. How does she thank us? By telling Joe Scarborough
that Stupak isn't so bad,
that it won't affect "the majority of America" - just low-income women
- and that it's "an example of having to govern with moderates."
So people who'll tip healthcare reform into the trash unless it blocks abortion access are the moderates now! (McCaskill took it back later, but the damage was done.) If I ever give that woman another dime, shoot me.
The
big pro-choice and feminist organisations are up in arms - Now and
Planned Parenthood want to see healthcare reform voted down if Stupak
is retained - but writing in the Daily Beast, Dana Goldstein nicely
captures the bewilderment of leaders caught by surprise. "It's the feeling that you've been rolled," said Eleanor Smeal, of Feminist Majority. Or haven't been paying attention.
Smeal
was onto something, though, when she told Goldstein: "Here we are
playing nice guy again, we didn't want to make a fuss." Consciously or
unconsciously, by not organising in advance to insist on coverage of
abortion, pro-choicers set themselves up to be out-manoeuvred. In fact,
as Sharon Lerner reported
on TheNation.com, Democrats stood by while anti-choicers kept
contraception out of the reform bill's list of basic benefits all
insurers must cover. So much for the "common ground" approach where we
all agree that birth control is the way to lower the abortion rate.
Enough
already. Pro-choicers have been taking one for the team since 1976,
when Congress passed the Hyde amendment, which Jimmy Carter would later
defend with the immortal comment: "There are many things in life that are not fair."
Time for the theocrats and male chauvinists to give something up for
the greater good - to say nothing of the 20 pro-choicers, all men, who
supported Stupak out of sheer careerism.
After all, if it weren't for pro-choicers, there wouldn't be much of a team for them to play on.