Today is Alabama Day
On December 14, 1819, Alabama became a state. While not an official state holiday, Alabama Governor Kay Ivey (R) did issue a proclamation declaring Thursday – Alabama Day. “For 204 years, our great state has stood as a testament to the enduring spirit of her people. I am honored to proclaim today as Alabama Day,” the Governor said on X. Congressman Barry Moore (R-AL02) also recognized the historical significance of Alabama Day on his X account. “On this day 204 years ago, Alabama became the 22nd state in our union. Happy National Alabama Day!” Moore wrote. Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals Judge Richard Minor also posted about the day and included maps of the first judicial districts in the then-new state. “204 years ago today Alabama gained statehood,” Judge Minor wrote on X. “Before that, she was a territory. And to think, judicially we started with only 5 judicial circuits, and the 5 circuit judges made up the Alabama Supreme Court. And each had life tenure.” “On this day in 1819, Alabama was admitted to the Union, becoming the 22nd state in the U.S.A. Wishing all of our citizens a Happy Alabama Day!” said the Alabama Republican Party on X. “Happy National Alabama Day!” On this day in 1819, Alabama became the 22nd state to join the union,” Congresswoman Terri Sewell (D-Selma) said on X. “Since then, the people of our state have played a pivotal role in shaping the history of our nation.” To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Most redistricting challenges have been dropped
The Alabama Legislature reapportioned and redistricted all of the congressional districts, the state board of education districts, and the districts in the Alabama House and Senate during a 2021 special session. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the congressional redistricting likely violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965, ultimately leading to the federal court redrawing the districts to create a second majority Black district in the state. That decision made many legislators concerned that the state legislative districts would be next, as suits had already been filed pending the outcome of the congressional redistricting case. Those concerns were alleviated on Thursday when Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall (R) announced today that the plaintiffs who challenged 33 different State House and Senate districts have now dropped challenges to only two state Senate districts. The decision by the plaintiffs to drop the cases came following the Attorney General’s filing of a motion to dismiss the claims. Now, challenges to only two Senate districts remain. “For two years, my office has been defending the State’s redistricting plans,” Marshall said in a statement. “I am pleased to report that the plaintiffs have dropped all their challenges to the State House districts and nearly all their challenges to the State Senate districts. We think the plaintiffs’ remaining two claims also lack merit. I will continue to defend Alabama’s laws and fight attempts to redraw our districts based on racial goals rather than common interests.” The 105 members of the Alabama House of Representatives during the 2023 regular session were divided 77 to 28 between Republicans and Democrats. The 28 Democrats represent majority-minority districts. Two House seats formerly held by Republicans are currently open and will be decided by pending special elections. Republican Bryan Brinyark faces Democrat John Underwood in HD16 on January 9. Republican Teddy Powell faces Democrat Marilyn Lands in HD10 on March 26. There is a potential for Democrats to pick up both House seats there in low-turnout special elections. The 35-member Alabama Senate during the 2023 regular session was divided 27 to 8, with the 8 Democrats representing majority-minority districts. The Republican-leaning Senate District 9 seat is open and will be decided in a special election on April 23. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Gov. Kay Ivey visits Atmore on her statewide broadband tour
On Wednesday, Alabama Governor Kay Ivey (R) visited Atmore Community Hospital in Escambia County on the third stop on her broadband tour. Ivey stressed the importance of high-speed internet in allowing Alabamians to access telehealth services while highlighting the progress in broadband projects across the state. “Broadband availability is not just for our convenience – it is a lifeline, particularly evident in telehealth services,” said Gov. Ivey. “For thousands of Alabamians in rural areas, telehealth bridges the gap to medical facilities, and without broadband, this vital resource remains out of reach for many,” said Governor Ivey. “I am proud to say Alabama remains committed to expanding our digital infrastructure, aiming to connect households, businesses, and institutions. Our broadband journey continues until every Alabamian has the ability to access high-speed internet.” Gov. Ivey was joined by Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs (ADECA) Director Kenneth Boswell, State Sen. Greg Albritton (R-Atmore), and Rep. Alan Baker (R-Brewton). “When you look at the digital world we live in today, access to broadband infrastructure is just as important, in many ways, as having access to electricity or running water,” said Sen. Albritton. “But for many Alabamians, especially those living in tougher to access, rural areas of our state, getting connected to high-speed internet is difficult and expensive. That’s why the programs we have funded through the legislature are so important; they give internet service providers the support needed to connect these hard-to-reach areas so that no Alabamians are left out. I have been proud to support broadband expansion in my leadership role in the Alabama Senate, and I will continue my work on this issue until all Alabamians have access to the 21st-century technologies needed for everyday life.” Albritton is a 2024 candidate for Congress in Alabama’s Second Congressional District. Eight candidates in total are running in the March 5 Republican primary, and 13 Democrats are running in the CD2 Democratic primary. Escambia and Baldwin Counties are receiving more than $17 million in grant and matching funds committed for broadband projects. These projects will give more than 3,600 currently unserved addresses the ability to be connected to broadband. These projects will result in over 140 miles of new fiber. The overall success of the Alabama Broadband Accessibility Fund (ABAF) was also discussed. ABAF is funded by the Alabama Legislature and supports targeted projects in communities in need of high-speed internet access. These funds are awarded by Governor Ivey and managed by ADECA. The grant awards give internet service providers the ability to execute projects that connect individual households, businesses, community anchor institutions such as libraries and schools, and others to broadband infrastructure. “Our continued progress in expanding high-speed internet access would not be possible without a unified team working hard every day to accomplish our state’s broadband goals,” said Director Boswell. “This team includes Governor Ivey, the Alabama Legislature, internet service providers, and others too many to name working together to make sure Alabama residents and Alabama communities have the tools needed to thrive.” Since 2018, Alabama has invested approximately $82 million in state dollars through grant awards supporting more than 100 projects through the Alabama Broadband Accessibility Fund. Once all Alabama Broadband Accessibility Fund projects awarded to date have been completed, access to broadband service will be available to more than 72,000 Alabama households, businesses, and community institutions that currently have no option to subscribe. The federal government has invested hundreds of millions of dollars into expanding broadband services in Alabama through the American Rescue Plan Act and the Build Back Better Infrastructure Bill. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Tommy Tuberville is concerned about farm policy
U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-Alabama) recently expressed concerns about farmers being unable to access disaster relief dollars. Specifically, Sen. Tuberville is concerned that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is discriminating against larger farms in the disaster relief that farmers receive. “I am continuing my effort to protect Alabama farmers,” Sen. Tuberville told Alabama reporters during a press call. “Right now, a lot of Alabama farmers are frustrated by the way the Department of Agriculture, USDA, is giving out aid for emergency disaster relief for things like drought, hurricanes, and winter storms.” “The Biden Administration took a helpful relief program and absolutely ruined it,” said Tuberville. “The program’s rollout was extremely delayed, and the methodology and the implementation of the relief program is not equal for all farmers based on their losses. Right now, larger farms are getting only about ten to twenty-five percent of their losses back in relief from the Department of Agriculture. That leaves a lot of our farmers struggling to make ends meet.” Alabama farmers are being severely impacted by the severe drought that hit the state from August to November. While rains did break the drought conditions, they came after killing frosts, meaning that many farmers went into winter without adequate stockpiled grass and hay to feed cows through the winter. USDA does have the Livestock Forage Disaster Program. Farmers and ranchers affected by the drought should contact their local Farm Service Agency office for more details. The drought has also impacted orchards and winter grain farmers (winter wheat, rye, and oats). Given the dry conditions, many parts of the state were too dry for the seeds to establish themselves if the farmers even got the crop in. They either lost the crop or had to irrigate to get it established this winter – pumping water, if it was even available, is costly. “This week, I am joining Senator Roger Marshall (R-Kansas) and Senator John Hoeven (R-North Dakota) to go on record to tell the Department of Agriculture to get the woke ideology out of farm aid,” Sen. Tuberville continued. “Disaster relief is supposed to help farmers who need it, not hurt them. Congress has appropriated the money. The Department needs to use it to help all of our farmers to keep food on the table.” Sen. Tuberville is also concerned that a recent decision by USDA to allow fresh beef imports from Paraguay will be dangerous for food safety in the United States. Historically, beef from the South American nation has been barred due to the presence of foot and mouth disease there and the fear that it could spread to the United States. “The USDA also recently passed a rule to allow the importation of fresh beef from Paraguay,” Tuberville said. “This represents and presents concerns to the safety of our nation’s beef consumption as Paraguay does not have the same food and processing standards as the United States. Our biggest concern is foot and mouth disease entering the U.S. through these imports. Not only is it a safety risk, but it is a huge blow to America’s beef farmers.” In response to the USDA rule, Sens. Mike Rounds (R-South Dakota) and Jon Tester (D-Montana) introduced Senate Bill 3386 (S.3386) to temporarily suspend imports of beef and beef products from Paraguay and require the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to convene a working group to fully evaluate the threat that such imports would have on U.S. food safety and animal health. Beef imports from Paraguay are expected to hit grocery store shelves beginning December 14, 2023. Foot and mouth disease is a highly contagious disease of cloven-hoofed animals like cattle. The USDA estimates that an outbreak in the United States would result in losses over a 15-year period of between $37 billion to $42 billion. The last known FMD outbreak in Paraguay occurred in 2011. “We are grateful for this bipartisan action to protect our food supply and animal health from what we view as an extremely irresponsible decision by the USDA,” said R-CALF USA CEO Bill Bullard. “But Congress will have to act quickly to pass this legislation in time to prevent the importation of potentially high-risk beef from Paraguay given that the USDA wants to allow such beef imports to begin as early as December 14.” “The USDA needs to start putting our farmers first, not last,” Tuberville concluded. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Katie Britt salutes passage of the NDAA
On Wednesday, the U.S. Senate passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). U.S. Senator Katie Britt (R-Alabama) released a statement following her vote to support final passage of the bipartisan NDAA. “Today, I voted to support the Fiscal Year 2024 NDAA, which contains major wins for Alabama, for our national defense, and for conservatives,” said Sen. Britt. “This legislation includes a 5.2 percent pay raise for our troops, forces the Biden Administration to resume construction of the wall at our southern border, and ensures that all future military promotions are solely based on an individual’s performance and merit.” “We also know that Communist China is our greatest geopolitical and national security threat, and everything the Chinese Communist Party does is as our adversary,” Britt continued. “This NDAA continues to modernize our military capabilities and assets, so that our warfighters remain the best equipped, trained, and ready in the world. This bill provides our military with the resources it needs to keep pace with China when it comes to addressing the threats in the Pacific and bolsters deterrence across the globe, including to aggressors such as Iran. This legislation provides critical missile defense and military training to the Israelis as they defend themselves from barbaric Hamas terrorists in the wake of October 7.” “Thanks to the hard work of our Alabama delegation, this bill also completely freezes any funding that would be used to build or renovate a Space Command headquarters in Colorado until a full audit of the Biden Administration’s politically-motivated, reckless basing decision is complete and publicized,” said Britt. “In addition, this NDAA authorizes more than $316 million for improvements to Alabama’s military bases and National Guard facilities. This is imperative to our state’s ability to continue strengthening our national defense long into the future, and it supports tens of thousands of good-paying jobs in communities across Alabama.” “I’m also especially proud to have included a provision in the NDAA that represents a positive step forward as we continue to work to better support the wellbeing of our servicemembers and their families,” Britt stated. “This provision is aimed at ensuring our military families have expanded access and greater flexibility when it comes to mental health care, and I’ll continue to advance this important mission.“ “I thank my colleagues on both the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, particularly Chairman Mike Rogers, for their work to ensure that Congress was able to pass this critical legislation to support our military here at home and around the world,” Britt concluded. The NDAA has been passed annually by Congress since 1961. It authorizes critical functions such as funding for the military, outlining national security priorities, and setting targets for modernizing defense technologies and munitions. This year the bill includes a 5.2% pay raise for the troops including more than 37,000 active-duty service members in Alabama. It authorizes $316.6 million in Military Construction Projects, including: · $68M for a Ground Test Facility on Redstone Arsenal · $65M for Military Family Housing at Maxwell Air Force Base · $57M for a new Army Reserve Center in Birmingham · $41.2M for new Barracks at Ft. Novosel Britt secured passage of a key amendment in the legislation that would require the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) to submit a report to Congress on the feasibility of allowing American servicemembers and their dependents to keep previously retained mental healthcare via telehealth services while transferring between postings. The bill also contains the FINISH IT Act, legislation co-sponsored by Senator Britt that would force the Biden Administration’s Department of Defense (DoD) to allow millions of dollars of unused border wall panels already owned by the U.S. government to be used to extend the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border that was started under the Trump Administration. The bill contains the MERIT Act, legislation co-sponsored by Senator Britt that will ensure that all military promotions are made on the basis of merit and performance rather than alternative factors. The final version of the NDAA stripped off a number of partisan provisions added by GOP House members. This is much closer to the bipartisan version of the NDAA that passed out of the Senate. This is the first NDAA that Katie Britt has been able to contribute to as a member of the United States Senate. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Gary Palmer and Robert Aderholt vote in favor of impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden
On Wednesday, the Alabama House of Representatives voted to formally begin an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden (D). U.S. Representatives Gary Palmer (R-AL06) and Robert Aderholt (R-AL04) released statements following their votes to open the impeachment inquiry. “Today’s vote by House Republicans is a step toward government transparency and accountability, specifically with the office of the President,” said Rep. Gary Palmer. “During the entirety of Congress’ investigation into the Biden family, the White House has been obstructing our ability to get the information we need. The American people should wonder why that is the case. Unlike the impeachment of President Trump which was based on false charges and was a political hack job, we have built a case based on solid evidence. Approving an impeachment inquiry is the next step in this process which will provide access to additional documents and other evidence I believe will provide proof President Biden was involved in what can only be described a family criminal cartel.” “Today, I voted to open a formal impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden,” Rep. Robert Aderholt said. “This resolution is a critically important step to ensure compliance with the law and full transparency of the process. To date, the Biden Administration has impeded the House’s investigation; therefore, the House has voted to reaffirm that the inquiry is authorized and can proceed to its conclusion.” “President Biden has continually lied about his involvement in this growing family enrichment scheme, and, with a formal impeachment inquiry, the House can now lay out the evidence for everyone to see. It is time the President and his family are held accountable,” Palmer concluded. Most of the alleged illicit activities were committed by the President’s son, Hunter Biden, but what Biden knew about his son’s dealings with agents of foreign governments and did he benefit from those activities has been a point of emphasis for the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees who have been conducting the investigations. “While a father should not be punished for the crimes of his son, it appears this President has possibly committed multiple impeachable offenses,” Aderholt continued. “At the top of that list is serving as a possible accomplice (the “Big Guy”) to the business dealings of his son, Hunter Biden.” Hunter Biden refused to testify before Congress on Wednesday but did go to the Capitol complex to hold a press conference in which he attacked the members of Congress conducting the investigation. “Just today, Hunter Biden refused to obey a Congressional subpoena,” Aderholt explained. “No one – not even the President’s family – gets to dictate how and which laws apply to them. Hunter Biden is going to learn that while it may be lucrative to trade off of his father’s name, it does not get him special treatment from the law.” “I’m confident that my colleagues on the appropriate committees will get to the bottom of all of this and Congress will hold the Bidens accountable,” Aderholt concluded. The House voted 221 to 212 along party lines to formally authorize the impeachment probe into President Biden. Hunter Biden is the subject of congressional and legal scrutiny regarding his overseas business dealings and alleged tax evasion. Hunter said that he was willing to testify publicly. House leaders said that they would not be dictated to by Hunter Biden and that they would initiate contempt proceedings against him. Democrats say that Republicans lack any evidence of wrongdoing by Biden. Critics suggest that this potential impeachment is in retaliation for the Democrats’ twice impeaching Donald Trump during his presidency. Palmer disagrees. “Unlike the political persecution of President Trump, this impeachment investigation will be based on facts,” Palmer said on X. “The American people deserve to know the truth- And the truth is long overdue.” Even if the House did eventually vote to impeach President Biden there is little chance that the Democratic-controlled Senate would act on a Biden impeachment. In the history of the United States no President has ever been convicted – much less removed by the U.S. Senate. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Barry Moore says he will vote to open an inquiry into impeaching Joe Biden
On Tuesday, Congressman Barry Moore (R-AL02) announced that he intends to vote in favor of a controversial proposal to formally open an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden (D). Moore claims that since Biden served as Vice President, foreign governments and entities working on behalf of foreign governments have paid as much as $24 million to members of the Biden family to curry favor and influence. “The media will tell you there’s no evidence for impeachment, but they won’t tell you the Bidens were paid $24 million by China, Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Romania through 20 shell companies,” Rep. Moore wrote on the social media platform X. “I will be voting for an impeachment inquiry so we can uncover the truth.” After weeks of back and forth and a threat to hold him in contempt of Congress, Hunter Biden briefly appeared in the Capitol complex on Wednesday, making a public statement outside the building instead of showing up for his scheduled deposition following a subpoena from House Republicans. Much of that foreign money went to Hunter Biden, the President’s son. Hunter was at the Capitol on Wednesday to hold a press conference criticizing the investigation from House Republicans. Hunter criticized the impeachment inquiry into his father. Hunter Biden, already under a Department of Justice indictment, defied the congressional subpoena the committee sent for his appearance. He could potentially be held in contempt of Congress. “For six years, I’ve been the target of the unrelenting Trump attack machine shouting. ‘Where’s Hunter?’” Hunter Biden said in a statement to reporters. “Well, here’s my answer. I am here.” “Let me state as clearly as I can: My father was not financially involved in my business — Not as a practicing lawyer. Not as a board member of Burisma, not in my partnership with a Chinese private businessman, not my investment at all nor abroad, and certainly not as an artist,” Hunter said. “There’s no evidence to support the allegations that my father was financially involved in my business because it did not happen.” “We’re going to move forward with contempt proceedings… there’s a process we have to follow, but we plan to do that,” said House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer (R-Kentucky) said, “Chairman Jordan and I have been very clear when we issued a lawful subpoena to the President’s son, that we expect him to come in and be deposed. This is a normal process and investigation.” Rep. Moore responded to Hunter Biden’s defiance on X. “Hunter Biden expects the same special treatment he received from the DOJ, IRS, and FBI,” said Moore. “No more sweetheart deals. He refused to answer our questions, so we’re going to initiate contempt of Congress proceedings.” Moore is seeking a third term in the March 5 Republican primary. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Candidate Gerrick Wilkins announces border security plan
On Wednesday, Congressional candidate Gerrick Wilkins announced his “America First Border Security Plan.” Wilkins said that his plan focuses on robust border security, adherence to the rule of law, and the safety of American citizens to solve the pressing crisis at our southern border. “As the crisis at our border escalates into a dire national security risk, it’s imperative for Congress to act decisively,” Wilkins said. “Our ‘America First Border Security Plan’ is a call to action, not just a policy proposal.” The key pillars of the plan are: · Constructing a formidable physical barrier along the entire southern border. Wilkins said this initiative is aimed at deterring illegal entry and symbolizes national resolve. · Significant funding increases for ICE and CBP by reallocating funds from the IRS expansion and Ukraine’s security. · Mobilizing the National Guard to bolster border security. Wilkins seeks the support of the US military to assist Mexico in eradicating drug cartels, highlighting the shared challenges in border security. · Enhanced collaboration with border states to strengthen security programs. · Deploying advanced technology such as drones, satellites, and surveillance tools for border monitoring and security. · Funding to streamline legal processes for asylum, deportation, and enforcement actions by empowering local law enforcement. · Reinstating President Donald Trump’s “Stay in Mexico” policy. · Ending Biden’s catch-and-release program · Stricter regulations and severe penalties for human traffickers · Expanding background checks for all individuals entering the country. · Imposing substantial penalties for visa overstays · Holding foreign governments accountable for facilitating or ignoring illegal immigration into the United States. · Companies will be mandated to verify the immigration status of their employees. · Immigration reforms shifting from family-based to merit-based immigration that aligns with national needs. · Reforming the refugee system to focus on low-risk individuals. · Increased costs of visas, background checks, and the naturalization process, as well as for international money transfers. These adjustments are designed to generate additional revenue to support the funding of enhanced border security measures. 2.76 million illegal immigrants crossed the southern border in fiscal year 2022 alone – that is equal to 55.1% of the population of the state of Alabama. That was followed by a record-breaking 3.2 million in fiscal year 2023 – equivalent to 64.5% of the population of the state of Alabama. The open border is also contributing to the deadly fentanyl epidemic, which is killing 107,000 Americans a year. 69.5% of the deaths are males. Drug overdose is now the leading cause of death for adults aged 18-45. Wilkins is involved in his local church, serving as a deacon and lay leader, engaging in mission work locally and globally, and working with Gideons International. Wilkins says that he is a Christian who loves the Lord. Gerrick also serves on several local advisory boards, including one for Mission Increase and Samford University’s Brock School of Business. Wilkins and his wife of 24 years, Carol, have donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to churches, various charities, mission organizations, and educational programs. They have one daughter. They have lived in Alabama since 2006 and in Vestavia Hills since 2014. Wilkins has a bachelor’s degree from Pensacola Christian College. He also has a degree in theology from Liberty University and a master’s in business administration from Samford University. Wilkins has worked for over 24 years in the automotive industry. His experience includes managing large-scale dealerships and helping other community-based dealers grow. While managing car dealerships in Alabama, he has learned firsthand the constant heartaches small businesses must contend with from overregulation and excessive taxes. Wilkins is running against incumbent Gary Palmer (R-AL06) and insurance agent Ken McFeeters in the Republican primary on March 5. The eventual Republican nominee will face Democrat Elizabeth Anderson in the November 5 general election. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
U.S. Supreme Court to decide fate of medication abortion access nationwide
Jennifer Shutt, Alabama Reflector WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court announced Wednesday it will hear oral arguments and decide whether broad access to the abortion pill can remain legal across the United States. The justices’ decision to hear the case this term will put abortion access and the politics that comes with it back in front of the nation’s highest court just before voters head to the polls for the 2024 presidential election. The drug at the center of the case, mifepristone, is used in more than half of pregnancy terminations within the United States as part of a two-pharmaceutical regimen that includes misoprostol as the second medication. Both are also used in miscarriage treatment. Patients’ ability to access mifepristone cannot change until the Supreme Court issues its ruling, under an order the court put out earlier this year. The nine members of the court will be answering three questions in their ruling, including whether changes the U.S. Food and Drug Administration made to prescribing and dosage in 2016 and 2021 were “arbitrary and capricious.” Those changes that expanded access included shipping the abortion pill to patients through the mail. The Supreme Court will also decide if the federal district court judge who ruled earlier this year to overturn the FDA’s original 2000 approval of the pharmaceutical “properly granted preliminary relief.” Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a written statement the Supreme Court “has never invalidated a long-standing FDA approval like they are being asked to do here.” “The stakes are enormous in post-Roe America,” Northup said. “Even those living in states with strong protections for abortion rights could have their ability to access mifepristone severely restricted if the Court rules against the FDA.” Northup said the ability for health care providers to prescribe the medication through telehealth and for patients to get it delivered to their homes became “critical” after the court ended the constitutional right to an abortion last year. “Abortion pills have been used safely in the U.S. for more than 20 years, and they are more important than ever in this post-Roe landscape,” Northup said. “That is precisely why the anti-abortion movement is attacking them.” Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Erin Hawley said in a written statement the anti-abortion organization urged the Supreme Court to determine “that the FDA acted unlawfully in removing common-sense safeguards for women and authorizing dangerous mail-order abortions.” “Like any federal agency, the FDA must rationally explain its decisions,” Hawley said. “Yet its removal of common-sense safeguards — like a doctor’s visit before women are prescribed chemical abortion drugs — does not reflect scientific judgment but rather a politically driven decision to push a dangerous drug regimen.” Constitutional right to abortion overturned The nine Supreme Court justices who will hear the case and ultimately render a ruling are the same justices who overturned the constitutional right to abortion in a June 2022 ruling. In the majority opinion in that case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the conservative justices wrote that “the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.” Following that decision, states throughout the country began to implement laws of their choosing, with some setting significant restrictions on when abortion is legal and other states moving to expand access. Several states have prohibited legal access to the abortion pill mifepristone, despite it being an FDA-approved pharmaceutical. In mid-November 2022, Alliance Defending Freedom filed a lawsuit challenging the original approval of the abortion pill in 2000 as well as the changes to when and how the drug could be used that were made in 2016 and during the COVID-19 pandemic. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Pediatricians, and the Christian Medical & Dental Associations, as well as four doctors from California, Indiana, Michigan, and Texas. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas Judge Matthew Joseph Kacsmaryk ruled in April 2023 that mifepristone should be removed from the market entirely, though he wrote that he did “not second-guess FDA’s decision-making lightly.” “But here, FDA acquiesced on its legitimate safety concerns — in violation of its statutory duty — based on plainly unsound reasoning and studies that did not support its conclusions,” Kacsmaryk wrote. The Biden administration requested the ruling be placed on hold until it could appeal the case, which was ultimately granted by the Supreme Court. That stay from the justices ensured mifepristone remains legal until they issue a ruling. 5th Circuit ruling The case went before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, Louisiana, which heard arguments in May 2023. The three-judge panel ruled in August 2023 that it believed the abortion pill should stay available nationwide, but that dosage and use should revert to what was in place before the FDA began implementing changes in 2016. That ruling was immediately placed on hold pending an appeal to the Supreme Court. Had the justices decided not to hear the appeal, that ruling would have taken effect. Going back to what was in place before 2016 would prevent mifepristone from being prescribed during a telehealth appointment or sent through the mail. Only doctors would be able to prescribe mifepristone, removing the option for other healthcare providers with the ability to prescribe medication from being able to do so with that particular drug. Prescriptions could only be written for up to seven weeks gestation, less than the 10-week threshold currently used by prescribers. Patients would need to attend three in-person doctor’s office appointments in order to receive a medication abortion. The dosage and timing of mifepristone as well as the second drug, misoprostol, would both revert to what was used more than seven years ago. DOJ appeal Following the 5th Circuit’s ruling, the U.S. Justice Department appealed its ruling to the Supreme Court, arguing the two lower courts made “serious legal errors.” “The loss of access to
Lawsuit alleges Alabama prisons using forced labor
Alander Rocha, Alabama Reflector Alabama’s prison labor program system is a form of modern-day slavery, according to a 126-page lawsuit filed by former and currently incarcerated Alabamians, unions, and civil rights organizations on Tuesday morning. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama in Montgomery, alleges that Alabama prison labor is sustained by punishing those who refuse to work or those who encourage other prisoners to refuse to work. It also accuses public and private entities, ranging from local governments to fast food restaurants and grocery stores, of benefitting from the labor. “They have been entrapped in a system of ‘convict leasing’ in which incarcerated people are forced to work, often for little or no money, for the ‘benefit of the numerous government entities and private businesses that ’employ them,’” the lawsuit alleged. The Alabama Department of Corrections said Tuesday it does not comment on ongoing litigation. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit — who include currently and formerly incarcerated Alabamians, three unions representing service industry employees, and the Woods Foundation, a civil rights organization — are asking the court to issue an injunction, ending Alabama’s current practice of “forced [prison] labor;” to release individuals qualified for parole; require the state to pay the plaintiffs what they earn through working in the prison system, as well as monetary damages to be determined at trial. Lakiera Walker, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit and paroled in 2023, said in a conference call Tuesday that she endured dreadful work conditions in the 15 that she was incarcerated at the Julia Tutwiler Prison and a work-release program in Birmingham when she was required to work outside of prison as a condition for her release. “I started working at a place called Southeastern Meats. It was a warehouse. It was a freezer. We would work from 2 p.m. to 2 a.m. — 12 hours a day — with no sufficient clothing is job,” she said. “Some days you were freezing, freezing cold between 30 and 40 degrees.” Walker alleges she was sexually harassed by her supervising officer, when she was working for Jefferson County doing road work from 2018 to 2020, making $2 a day. After reporting the incident, she was reprimanded for refusing to work and had to work additional hours. “So many women on the inside now that are afraid to speak out for fear of retaliation,” she said. “Those women they really need help. They really need a voice.” Janet Herold, legal director at Justice Catalyst Law and an attorney representing the plaintiffs, compared the current system to Alabama’s convict-leasing system, which ran from the 1870s to 1928. Under convict-leasing, private companies paid the state for uncompensated labor by state inmates, most of whom were Black, to work in degrading and often deadly conditions. The lawsuit claims Alabama made almost half a billion dollars from prison labor in 2023. “We’re not talking here today about a new Jim Crow; we’re talking here about the old Jim Crow,” Herold said. The lawsuit also alleged that the state grew these programs by favoring white over Black prisoners in parole decisions for release. It further alleges that the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles, which has sharply curtailed parole grants in recent years, has “unlawfully refused to release people from prison and further skewed the racial composition of the incarcerated population by wrongfully denying parole to thousands of Alabamians—and to Black Alabamians in particular.” A message seeking comment from the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles was left on Tuesday. The lawsuit alleged the parole board, under directions from Gov. Kay Ivey and Attorney General Steve Marshall, “has unlawfully refused to release people from prison and further skewed the racial composition of the incarcerated population by wrongfully denying parole to thousands of Alabamians—and to Black Alabamians in particular.” Ivey and Marshall’s offices did not return requests for comment on Tuesday. Alimireo English, a plaintiff currently incarcerated at the Ventress Correctional Facility, was denied parole in November. English said he has been forced to supervise a dorm of 190 incarcerated people, without any supervision from a correctional officer. English said in the conference call that he holds keys to gates and doors, works 12-14 hours a day, sometimes seven days a week, and is on call 24 hours a day. His work allows the administration to use their limited staff in more unstructured dorms, he said, or to give them days off for “employees who are themselves relying on the parole-ready inmates.” “Why would the slave master, by his own free will,” he asked, “release men on parole who aid and assist them in making their paid jobs easier and carefree?” Alabama Reflector is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Alabama Reflector maintains editorial independence. Follow Alabama Reflector on Facebook and Twitter.
