Texas AG Ken Paxton sues Pfizer citing misrepresentation of COVID-19 vaccine efficacy
By Bethany Blankley | The Center Square contributor Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued Pfizer on Thursday, alleging the pharmaceutical giant unlawfully misrepresented the effectiveness of its COVID-19 vaccine and attempted to censor public discussion about it. The lawsuit comes six months after his office launched an investigation into three pharmaceutical giants in May. It was filed in the District Court of Lubbock County, Texas, and solely names Pfizer., Inc., as the defendant. Paxton alleges that Pfizer engaged in false, deceptive, and misleading acts and practices by making unsupported claims about its COVID-19 vaccine in violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Because of Pfizer’s claims, “placing their trust in Pfizer, hundreds of millions of Americans lined up to receive the vaccine,” Paxton’s 54-page brief states. “Contrary to Pfizer’s public statements, however, the pandemic did not end; it got worse. “More Americans died in 2021, with Pfizer’s vaccine available, than in 2020, the first year of the pandemic. This, in spite of the fact that the vast majority of Americans received a COVID-19 vaccine, with most taking Pfizer’s.” Paxton’s lawsuit adds: “By the end of 2021, official government reports showed that in at least some places, a greater percentage of the vaccinated were dying from COVID-19 than the unvaccinated. Pfizer’s vaccine plainly was not ‘95% effective.’” By October 2022, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that roughly 226.6 million people were fully vaccinated after receiving one Johnson & Johnson dose or two doses of Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, the New York Times reported. Another more than 111 million people received additional booster shots at the time. The complaint notes that Pfizer’s efficacy claim was based on a “relative risk reduction” metric used during its initial, two-month clinical trial. Such metrics, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, are misleading and “‘unduly influence[s]’ consumer choice.” It also states that Pfizer’s clinical trial “failed to measure whether the vaccine protects against transmission;” despite this, Pfizer “embarked on a campaign to intimidate the public into getting the vaccine as a necessary measure to protect their loved ones.” When efficacy failed, “Pfizer then pivoted to silencing truth-tellers,” Paxton argues. The brief states, “How did Pfizer respond when it became apparent that its vaccine was failing and the viability of its cash cow was threatened? By intimidating those spreading the truth, and by conspiring to censor its critics. Pfizer labeled as ‘criminals’ those who spread facts about the vaccine. It accused them of spreading ‘misinformation.’ And it coerced social media platforms to silence prominent truth-tellers.” The lawsuit follows an investigation Paxton launched into Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson in May to determine if the companies engaged in gain-of-function research and misled the public about their practices. The investigation sought to determine if the companies misrepresented the efficacy of their COVID-19 vaccines and violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Investigators also looked into potential manipulation of vaccine trial data and the “relative risk reduction” method that was used instead of “absolute risk reduction” method. Paxton’s lawsuit stems from information it received after sending Civil Investigative Demands to the pharmaceutical giants. The COVID-lockdown era “was a deeply challenging time for Americans,” Paxton said when launching the investigation. “If any company illegally took advantage of consumers during this period or compromised people’s safety to increase their profits, they will be held responsible. If public health policy was developed on the basis of flawed or misleading research, the public must know. The catastrophic effects of the pandemic and subsequent interventions forced on our country and citizens deserve intense scrutiny, and we are pursuing any hint of wrongdoing to the fullest.” The federal government under former President Donald Trump entered into a $1.9 billion agreement with Pfizer, which was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Dec. 11, 2020. Trump pushed the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine through what he called “Operation Warp Speed,” making it available through Emergency Use Authorization as an experimental drug. Operation Warp Speed spent $12.4 billion on the vaccines, TIME reported. As Pfizer declared its vaccine was “95% effective,” on Dec. 17, 2020, Trump tweeted, “The Vaccine and the Vaccine rollout are getting the best of reviews. Moving along really well. Get those ‘shots’ everyone!” After he lost his reelection, at an RNC event at Mar-a-Lago in April 2021, Trump said everyone should refer to the COVID-19 vaccines as the “Trumpcine.” In a January 2022 interview, he said the “vaccines saved tens of millions throughout the world.” His former White House domestic policy advisor Joe Grogan also said Trump “handed [President Joe] Biden three vaccines,” TIME reported. “Biden is just really making our COVID response look a lot better than the media gave us credit for.” Trump continues to take credit for the vaccines, arguing they are effective and saved lives. Republished with the permission of The Center Square.
16 AGs, other groups file petition opposing EPA rule setting new greenhouse gas standards
Sixteen state attorneys general, 15 state associations, and multiple organizations are fighting against another Environmental Protection Agency rule they argue jeopardizes American energy and national security. The AGs, led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, filed a brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to halt the EPA from implementing “radical climate regulations.” Their efforts follow another led by Paxton and 12 attorneys general last month opposing a new EPA “environmental justice” rule they also argue will risk Americans’ safety. Texas, which leads the U.S. in energy production powered by oil and natural gas, argues the standards “would make America weaker and increasingly reliant on hostile nations like China.” At issue is the EPA’s “Revised 2023 and Later Model Year Light Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards,” 86 Fed. Reg. 74,434, which was slated to go into effect on February 28, 2022. After eight lawsuits were filed over the rule, both the rule and cases, which were consolidated, are pending. The EPA is still trying to exceed its statutory authority, Paxton argued, after the U.S. Supreme Court curtailed it in June. In the historic ruling in West Virginia v EPA, the high court “ended EPA’s plan to ‘substantially restructure the American energy market’ in pursuit of the agency’s unauthorized climate goals,” the AG’s brief says. The EPA’s greenhouse gas rule “is a rerun of West Virginia, except here, EPA seeks to substantially restructure the American automobile market in pursuit of unauthorized climate goals. EPA’s action should fail for the same reason as in West Virginia – under no plausible reading of the Clean Air Act was EPA given authority to perform this restructuring,” they argue. Section 202 of the Clean Air Act charges the EPA with promulgating “standards” about how much air pollutants vehicles may lawfully emit. After a 2007 case, Massachusetts v. EPA, the EPA began including greenhouse gases in Clean Air Act standards. And in 2020, it promulgated carbon dioxide emissions standards on car manufacturers for cars made between 2022 and 2026. However, once President Joe Biden took office, the EPA “radically shifted course,” Paxton argues. On his first day in office, Biden issued an executive order instituting a new climate agenda that included revising the EPA’s 2020 standards. He also directed a then-defunct “Interagency Working Group” to reform to provide monetized estimates of the “social cost” of a unit of greenhouse gases, which the AGs argue is “enormous.” By doing so, the president “stacked the regulatory deck by directing EPA to rewrite its emission standards in a way that accounts for those extraordinary estimates,” the AGs argue, citing a January 20, 2021, Federal Register entry. The standards aren’t based on individual vehicle compliance but on averaging the emissions from vehicles fleet-wide – which counts electric vehicle emissions as a zero. The standards are so stringent that the EPA stated in a December 30, 2021, Federal Register entry that they will “necessitate” manufacturers to “further deploy” electric vehicles to comply using fleet-averaging. The EPA also estimated its new rule would force 17% of new car sales in 2026 to be electric. But the “EPA had no authority to promulgate the Standards and functionally force vehicle manufacturers to produce more electric vehicles,” the AGs argue. The standards “place enormous new strain on the electric grid,” they argue, “threatening the grid’s reliability altogether.” Federal agencies without “clear congressional authorization” don’t have the authority to take any action that would “threaten the reliability of the grid,” they also point out, arguing the EPA was granted no such authority in this case. Paxton said the standards “unreasonably target car and light truck greenhouse gas emissions” with the goal of destroying “financial incentives to manufacture gas-powered vehicles. These actions will likely lead to substantial increases in the cost of transportation for working Americans.” Another cause for concern, the AGs argue, is the standards jeopardize national security. “An overwhelming share of the materials required to produce electric vehicles are in China and other hostile countries,” they maintain. “The State Petitioners have long partnered with the federal government to enhance energy security and diminish our reliance on hostile foreign actors. And Congress has expressly legislated on that topic. It is implausible that Congress would have empowered EPA . . . to jeopardize this goal by forcing vehicle manufacturers to increase reliance on foreign actors.” Joining Paxton are the AGs from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Utah. Republished with the permission of The Center Square.
AGs push back against EPA ‘environmental justice’ rule, say it will increase energy costs
Twelve attorneys general have submitted comments to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Michael Regan expressing concerns about a new proposed rule they argue will increase energy costs and risk Americans’ safety. At issue is the EPA’s proposed rule, “Accidental Release Prevention Requirements: Risk Management Programs under Clean Air Act; Safer Communities by Chemical Accident Prevention.” (87 Fed. Reg. 53,556), which Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton argues is another attempt by the Biden administration to revive an Obama-era “environmental justice” regulation. If implemented, it would far exceed the statutory authority of the EPA, the attorneys general argue, which was curtailed by the Supreme Court earlier this year. The rule would require a range of American facilities and industries to implement costly new processes to minimize “climate change risks,” which the EPA hasn’t proved will reduce such risks, they argue. Those impacted by the regulations would include petroleum refineries, chemical manufacturers, water and wastewater treatment systems, chemical and petroleum wholesalers and terminals, food manufacturers, packing plants, cold storage facilities, agricultural chemical distributors, and midstream gas plants, among others. The proposed rule would impose “burdensome new regulatory requirements that do not lead to improvements in preventing accidental releases or minimizing the consequences of any such releases,” they write, and “would come at the cost of a greater regulatory burden without providing sufficient corresponding benefits.” It would also cripple the U.S. energy industry and subsequently create a serious national security risk, the attorney generals from Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah, and led by Oklahoma, argue. Worse still, another requirement would jeopardize Americans’ safety, they argue because it requires certain facilities to publicly disclose information about specific locations of dangerous chemicals. This would only expose Americans to “risks of intentional releases by bad actors,” they write. “There is an inherent security risk in requiring public disclosure of information of sensitive information about chemical facilities without protections sufficient to mitigate that risk.” The EPA has offered no evidence that imposing additional regulations “would have any effect on the number of chemical accidents that occur at the regulated entities,” they say. Instead, it “would increase costs and add onerous reporting requirements on the regulated facilities.” Several commenters offered support for the rule change during the 2019 reconsideration comment period, but none provided information to support security concerns. The AGs argue the Biden administration is revisiting the same “security shortcomings we warned about” before. They aren’t alone. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott also has been pushing back against EPA overreach in the Permian Basin and supported the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in West Virginia v. EPA in June. He said it correctly ruled to restrain the EPA when the agency has attempted to impose costly regulations without input from Congress. Abbott said the ruling was “a victory against an out-of-control administration” as Americans were grappling with “skyrocketing energy costs due to expensive federal regulations that threaten our energy industry. President Biden cannot keep attacking the energy industry and the hardworking men and women who power our nation.” And while other states continue to be hamstrung by federal regulations, Texas continues to lead the U.S. in oil and natural gas production and job creation. Such a rule would stifle that growth, Abbott said. Oil & Gas Workers Association Board Member Richard Welch told The Center Square a so-called “environmental justice” rule would devastate the economy, drive fuel prices up and hamper production at refineries that are already producing at capacity and under the strictest regulations already. The rule isn’t about “justice,” he argues, but is “simply a ‘strong arm’ of an already weaponized EPA aimed at suffocating the already over-regulated oil and gas industry.” Welch also says the administration doesn’t regulate the wind, solar and electric vehicle industries to the extent that it regulates the oil and natural gas industry. These industries also receive significant subsidies from the federal government while the harvesting of resources and production to create so-called green energy “causes significant harm to the environment,” he added. He also said the U.S. oil and gas industry “remains confident in the AGs commitment to protecting it from ongoing federal overreach” and the Texas oil and natural gas industry “remains confident in the efforts of AG Paxton and Gov. Abbott to ensure Texas remains the oil and gas powerhouse that fuels America and the world.” Republished with the permission of The Center Square.
States reach $438.5M settlement with e-cig company Juul
Electronic cigarette company Juul will pay out $438.5 million to 33 states as part of a proposed settlement following a two-year investigation into the company’s marketing practices. The investigation, led by Texas, Connecticut, and Oregon, found that the company intentionally advertised the addictive nicotine vaping products to underaged users. The company will pay out the settlement over a six to 10-year period and requires the company to adhere to strict injunctive requirements, according to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office. “When I launched this investigation over two years ago, my goal was to make sure JUUL was held liable for any wrongdoing done in the past and ensure that they change direction to fully comply with the law going forward,” Paxton said in a statement. “This settlement helps accomplish both of those priorities.” Texas will get $42.8 million as part of the settlement. In addition to Texas, Connecticut, and Oregon, the settlement also includes Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. “No nicotine marketing to kids! It was wrong when it was Joe Camel, and it’s wrong when it’s JUUL’s ‘Miint’ and ‘Fruut’ flavors and their influencer-led targeting,” Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost said in a statement. “This settlement puts an end to Juul’s trawling for new addicts among our children.” Yost’s office said finalizing the settlement could take up to one month. In June, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ordered Juul to cease marketing and selling the products in the country. The order led to a court fight that resulted in an agreement by the FDA and Juul to suspend the case, allowing the company to continue sales. Republished with the permission of The Center Square.
Steve Marshall joins nine attorneys general to call for state adoption of The Women’s Bill of Rights
Today, ten attorneys general announced their support for the Women’s Bill of Rights (WBOR). The group also is urging other state attorneys general nationwide to pledge their support. In March, the Independent Women’s Voice, the Independent Women’s Law Center (IWLC), and Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF) released the WBOR to codify the common definitions of ‘woman,’ ‘girl,’ and ‘mother.’ According to the WBOR, this would “ensure that our country’s laws recognize there are legitimate reasons to distinguish between the sexes with respect to athletics, prisons or other detention facilities, domestic violence shelters, rape crisis centers, locker rooms, restrooms, and other areas where biology, safety, and/or privacy are implicated.” Congress has since introduced H. Res. 1136, sponsored by Rep. Debbie Lesko of Arizona and co-sponsored by 28 House members, and S. Res. 644, sponsored by Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (MS) and co-sponsored by Sens. Cynthia Lummis (WY) and Ted Cruz (TX). Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch, the first attorney general to support WBOR, said, “Feminism, once understood as the way to promote equality for women, is today disintegrating in an identity crisis of its own making. But it is not only legitimate for women to have a space of their own in which to grow and thrive; it is good for society to carve out that safe space for women to engage with one another in athletics, education, fellowship, and sometimes even in healing.” In April, Gov. Kay Ivey signed legislation restricting transgender students from participating in K-12 sports. The bill says a public K-12 school “may never allow a biological male to participate on a female team.” Additionally, a federal appeals court will hear arguments in November over Alabama’s efforts to outlaw the use of gender-affirming medications to treat transgender minors. Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry added, “My mother coached women’s basketball in the ‘70s, and she had to fight for everything for those girls — including simple court time. It’s despicable that radical leftists are jeopardizing the equality that my mom and many other women across the country worked so hard to achieve. Changing the biological definition of a person does not create equity; rather, it creates confusion and harm for all.” “As the first female elected Attorney General of Arkansas, I will do everything in my power to ensure that my daughter and girls across the nation have equal access to athletic, employment, and educational opportunities without being forced to unfairly compete against biological males,” said Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge. “I helped Arkansas lead this effort with the GIRLS Act, and I am proud to join my colleagues in signing the Women’s Bill of Rights.” The following attorneys general pledged their support of the WBOR: Lynn Fitch of Mississippi, Ken Paxton of Texas, Steve Marshall of Alabama, Leslie Rutledge of Arkansas, Jeff Landry of Louisiana, Doug Peterson of Nebraska, Sean Reyes of Utah, Austen Knudsen of Montana, Patrick Morrisey of West Virginia, and Alan Wilson of South Carolina.
Alabama cites abortion ruling in transgender medication case
Days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states can prohibit abortion, Alabama has seized on the decision to argue that the state should also be able to ban gender-affirming medical treatments for transgender youths. The case marks one of the first known instances in which a conservative state has tried to apply the abortion ruling to other realms, just as LGBTQ advocates and others were afraid would happen. Critics have expressed fear that the legal reasoning behind the high court ruling could lead to a rollback of decisions involving such matters as gay marriage, birth control, and parental rights. The state is asking a federal appeals court to lift an injunction and let it enforce an Alabama law that would make it a felony to give puberty blockers or hormones to transgender minors to help affirm their gender identity. In its historic ruling last Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court said terminating a pregnancy is not a fundamental constitutional right because abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution and is not “deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition.” In a brief filed Monday, the Alabama attorney general’s office argued similarly that gender transition treatments are not “deeply rooted in our history or traditions,” and thus, the state has the authority to ban them. Alabama contends such treatments are dangerous and experimental, a view disputed by medical organizations. Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said this is the first case he is aware of in which a state cited the abortion ruling on another issue, but added, “It won’t be the last.” Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito said in the majority opinion that the abortion ruling should not cast “doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” But Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the same legal reasoning should be used to reconsider high court rulings protecting same-sex marriage, gay sex, and contraceptives. “It is no surprise that Alabama and other extremely conservative states are going to take up that invitation as forcefully as they can,” Minter said. “Justice Thomas’ concurrence was a declaration of war on groups already under attack, and we expect the hostility to be escalated.” In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s so-called Dobbs decision, Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, in an interview with NewsNation, did not rule out defending a state law against gay sex if the GOP-controlled Legislature were to approve a new one. The previous one was struck down by the high court in 2003. On the opposite side of the political spectrum, Massachusetts lawmakers are looking to increase state protections for gender-affirming care, in addition to abortion, in reaction to the Supreme Court ruling. Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall was unavailable for comment Thursday, a spokesman said. Jeff Walker, who has a 15-year-old transgender daughter, said this spring that it felt as if Alabama were attacking families like his with legislation targeting transgender kids’ medication and dictating their choice of school bathrooms, locker rooms, and sports teams. He said the state’s argument in this case is worrisome for everyone. “I think everyone should be concerned by the wording of this appeal. By this logic, any health care the state feels isn’t in line with its morals or beliefs should be banned,” Walker said. The Alabama case could become an early test of where judges stand on the scope of the abortion ruling. The appeals court granted the state’s request for an expedited schedule for submitting briefs, and a decision could come as early as this fall. While Alabama was already appealing the injunction in the transgender medication case, the state quickly incorporated the abortion decision into its filing. Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey this spring signed the law making it a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison to dispense certain medication to minors to help with their gender transition. A federal judge in May issued a preliminary injunction blocking the measure, siding with parents who said the law violates their children’s rights and their own rights to direct their youngsters’ medical care. “What’s interesting about Supreme Court decisions is they tend to have a life of their own,” said Alison Gash, a professor of political science at the University of Oregon. Courts have generally supported the right of parents to make medical decisions for their children, including in cases where families don’t want to get cancer treatments recommended by doctors, Gash said. She said she is expecting to see more arguments like Alabama’s arising out of the Dobbs decision, and they could have a major effect on the right to make medical decisions. “A lot of us feel like the guardrails have completely fallen off, because there is no real predictability about how relevant Dobbs will be to a whole wide range of issues that affect so many different vulnerable communities,” Gash said. Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
Supreme Court: Joe Biden can end Donald Trump-era asylum policy
The Supreme Court said Thursday the Biden administration can scrap a Trump-era immigration policy that was at the center of efforts to deter asylum-seekers, forcing some to wait in Mexico. Two conservative justices joined their three liberal colleagues in siding with the White House. The justices’ decision came in a case involving former President Donald Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy, formally known as Migrant Protection Protocols, which enrolled about 70,000 people after it was launched in 2019. President Joe Biden suspended the program on his first day in office in January 2021. But lower courts ordered it reinstated in response to a lawsuit from Republican-led Texas and Missouri. The current administration has sent far fewer people back to Mexico than did the Trump administration. The ruling was released on the same day that the court dealt the administration a blow in an important environmental case about the nation’s main anti-air pollution law. That ruling could complicate the administration’s plans to combat climate change. The heart of the legal fight in the immigration case was about whether U.S. immigration authorities, with far less detention capacity than needed, had to send people to Mexico or whether those authorities had the discretion under federal law to release asylum-seekers into the United States while they awaited their hearings. After Biden’s suspension of the program, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas ended it in June 2021. In October, the department produced additional justifications for the policy’s demise, but that was to no avail in the courts. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that an appeals court “erred in holding that the” federal Immigration and Nationality Act “required the Government to continue implementing MPP.” Joining the majority opinion was fellow conservative Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump-appointee, as well as liberal justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Kavanaugh also wrote separately and noted that in general, when there is insufficient detention capacity, both releasing asylum-seekers into the United States and sending them back to Mexico “are legally permissible options under the immigration statutes.” Cornell University law professor Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration expert, said the Biden administration does not need to take any further action to end the policy but that Texas and Missouri can pursue a challenge over whether the administration followed appropriate procedure in ending the program. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement that the decision was “unfortunate.” He argued it would make “the border crisis worse. But it’s not the end. I’ll keep pressing forward and focus on securing the border and keeping our communities safe in the dozen other immigration suits I’m litigating in court.” Because of lower court decisions, MPP resumed in December, but the administration has registered only 7,259 migrants in the program, about 6 of every 10 of them Nicaraguans. The administration has said it would apply the policy to nationalities that are less likely to be subject to pandemic-era asylum limits. Strained diplomatic relations with Nicaragua makes it extremely difficult for the U.S. to expel people back to their homeland under the pandemic rule, known as Title 42 authority. U.S. authorities stopped migrants 1.2 million times on the Mexico border from December through May, illustrating the limited impact that “Remain in Mexico” has had under Biden. Democratic-led states and progressive groups were on the administration’s side in the case. Republican-run states and conservative groups sided with Texas and Missouri. The case is Biden v. Texas, 21-954. Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
Some U.S. clinics stop doing abortions as ruling takes hold
Abortion bans that were put on the books in some states in the event Roe v. Wade was overturned started automatically taking effect Friday, while clinics elsewhere — including Alabama, Texas, and West Virginia — stopped performing abortions for fear of prosecution, sending women away in tears. “Some patients broke down and could not speak through their sobbing,” said Katie Quinonez, executive director of West Virginia’s lone abortion clinic, whose staff spent the day calling dozens of patients to cancel their appointments. “Some patients were stunned and didn’t know what to say. Some patients did not understand what was happening.” America was convulsed with anger, joy, fear, and confusion after the Supreme Court overturned Roe. The canyon-like divide across the U.S. over the right to terminate a pregnancy was on full display, with abortion-rights supporters calling it a dark day in history while abortion foes welcomed the ruling as the answer to their prayers. Women who traveled across state lines to end a pregnancy found themselves immediately thwarted in some places as abortions were halted as a result of state laws that were triggered by the court decision or confusion over when those laws would take effect. In eliminating the constitutional right to abortion that has stood for a half-century, the high court left the politically charged issue up to the states, about half of which are now likely to ban the procedure. Abortions were immediately halted in nine states. Providers in two other states, Oklahoma and South Dakota, had already stopped performing the procedure in the past month. About 73 million people live in the 11 states where the procedure was not available — more than a fifth of the U.S. population. The reaction across the country largely fell along predictable political lines. New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Democrat in a state where abortions are available with few restrictions, called the ruling a “war on women” and vowed to stand as a “brick wall” to help preserve the right. Republican Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin vowed to seek a ban on abortions after 15 weeks. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a conservative Republican widely considered a potential candidate for president in 2024, tweeted: “The Supreme Court has answered the prayers of millions upon millions of Americans.” The issue is certain to intensify the fall election season. Both sides intend to use the issue to energize supporters and get them to vote. “This country is lurching to the right, taking away rights. The voters are going to have to intervene,” said Democratic Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, the U.S. House majority whip. Some states, including Louisiana, Arkansas, and Missouri, had “trigger law” bans on the books that went into effect as soon as Roe fell. In Alabama, the state’s three abortion clinics stopped performing the procedure for fear providers would now be prosecuted under a law dating to 1951. At the Alabama Women’s Center for Reproductive Alternatives in Huntsville, the staff had to tell women in the waiting room Friday morning that they could not perform any more abortions that day. Some had come from as far away as Texas for an appointment. “A lot of them just started breaking down crying. Can you imagine if you had driven 12 hours to receive this care in this state and you are not able to?” clinic owner Dalton Johnson said. Patients were given a list of out-of-state places still doing abortions. Abortion providers across Arizona likewise stopped doing procedures while they try to determine if a law dating to pre-statehood days — before 1912 — means doctors and nurses will face prison time now. In Texas, providers wondered which law they had to follow: a 1925 ban, a 2021 law that limits abortions to the first six weeks of pregnancy, or a trigger law that bans the procedure outright, but wouldn’t take effect for a month or more. The confusion led them to suspend abortions while they seek legal advice. Texas Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton warned they could face immediate prosecution for performing abortions under the Prohibition-era ban, which carries two to five years in prison. It was the risk of prosecution under a 19th-century abortion ban punishable by prison that led the Women’s Health Center of West Virginia to stop performing the procedure. West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice, a Republican, said he will not hesitate to call the Legislature into special session if the ban needs to be clarified. In Ohio, a federal judge dissolved an injunction, allowing a 2019 state law to take effect banning most abortions at the first detectable fetal heartbeat. The high court ruling drew strong reactions around the country. Carol E. Tracy, the executive director of the Women’s Law Project in Philadelphia, was “absolutely furious.” “They want women to be barefoot and pregnant once again,” she said. “But I have no doubt that women and like-minded men, and people in the LGBTQ community, who are also at great risk, … we’re going to fight back. I think it’s going to be a long, hard fight.” Garrett Bess, who works with a lobbying arm of the conservative Heritage Foundation, said his group will continue to press states to restrict abortion. “We’ll be working with grassroots Americans to ensure the protection of pregnant mothers and babies,” Bess said outside the Supreme Court. “This has been a long time coming, and it’s a welcome decision.” Opinion polls show that a majority of Americans favor preserving Roe. They include Alison Dreith, 41, an abortion activist in southern Illinois, where the governor has vowed to keep the procedure accessible. She said she fears for the safety of abortion workers, especially those who help people from states where the procedure is banned. Dreith works with the Midwest Action Coalition, which offers gas money, child care, and other practical support to women seeking abortions. “I absolutely believe that they will try to come after me. I’m not built for prison, but I’m ready,” she said, “and I say, ‘Let’s do this.’ You
Steve Marshall joins 21 attorneys general; file brief with SCOTUS against federal firearm accessory ban
Twenty-two state attorneys general, led by AGs from Montana and West Virginia, have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court over a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) rule they argue would immediately transform hundreds of thousands of law-abiding gun owners into criminals. Through its rulemaking, the ATF is attempting to regulate bump-stock accessories by claiming that they transform the firearms they attach to into machine guns as defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934. The AGs filed an amicus brief in support of Gun Owners of America, Inc., which sued U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, and are asking the court to hear the case after the full Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals was evenly split on the issue. The ATF’s rule is a way for the federal agency to circumvent Congress and rewrite law that only Congress has the authority to do, the AGs argue. “The Final Rule effectively transforms commonly owned firearms into banned machine guns simply because of the use of non-mechanical bump-stock accessories. This interpretation categorically expands the text of the criminal statute in a way that Congress couldn’t possibly have intended,” they argue in their brief. “And it expands criminal liability at the expense of Second Amendment rights, diminishing the latter absent a sufficient and compelling justification. When the ATF – or any agency – invades protected rights by interpreting statutes too broadly, this Court should step in.” A bump stock, or stabilizing brace, isn’t a weapon. It’s a device that attaches to the rear of a pistol and slips around the user’s forearm. They’re often used to reduce recoil, prevent injury, and allow the user to more safely and accurately fire their gun. They don’t transform semi-automatic rifles into automatic machine guns. Tens of millions of stabilizing braces are sold nationwide. “The significance of this case goes beyond any firearm accessory and gun rights. No federal agency should be able to create criminal code without Congressional authorization,” Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen said. “The Supreme Court must take up this important case to uphold the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment and affirm this important check on the federal executive’s power.” West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey said the ATF doesn’t “get to overrule the Constitutional rights of firearm owners across the nation.” Morrisey also points out that the ATF has recognized that “bump firing” has been around for as long as there have been semi-automatic firearms and common items like rubber bands, belt loops, and shoestrings can all be used to the same effect as bump stocks, which the ATF is attempting to criminalize. “Actions like the ATF’s do not just violate important principles of administrative law. They also illustrate how the government can endanger fundamental rights through creeping, incremental, and seemingly benign regulatory depredations,” the AGs argue in their brief. “If Congress had wanted to categorically expand the NFA to cover semiautomatic firearms that use a bump-stock accessory, it would – and must – have done so explicitly.” Judges on a Sixth Circuit panel ruled against ATF last March, concluding that bump stocks don’t transform commonly used semi-automatic firearms into machine guns. However, when brought before the full Sixth Circuit Court, the judges were evenly split, resulting in the lower district court’s ruling being upheld, allowing the ATF’s rule to stand. Attorneys general from West Virginia, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming signed the amicus brief. Their petition comes after Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and more than 140 Republican members of Congress last June took issue with the ATF’s rule change, arguing it violates federal law, contradicts longstanding ATF policy and is unconstitutional. They also argue ATF’s rule change wrongly targets veterans and hurts law-abiding gun owners. Paxton said in a statement that a federal agency “cannot, through the administrative ‘interpretation’ of law, criminalize conduct that will send people to prison. Federal criminal laws must be enacted democratically, with the approval of both houses of Congress and the president.” According to a recent Congressional Research Service report, “there are between 10 and 40 million stabilizing braces and similar components already in civilian hands,” and “[a]ltering the classification of firearms equipped with stabilizing braces would likely affect millions of owners.” Republished with the permission of The Center Square.
U.S. ends asylum restrictions for children traveling alone
Unaccompanied child migrants trying to enter the United States will no longer be denied a chance to seek asylum under new guidance announced by U.S. health authorities. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in announcing the change late Friday night, said: “that expulsion of unaccompanied non-citizen children is not warranted to protect the public health.” The change was announced shortly before a court order was to take effect that would have allowed the Biden administration to expel unaccompanied children seeking asylum under Title 42 authority, which was introduced in March 2020 to prevent the spread of COVID-19. The order remains in place for adults and families traveling with children. Testing and other preventive measures allow children traveling alone to be released to sponsors in the United States, the CDC said. Sponsors are typically family or other close relatives. A federal judge ruled in a lawsuit by the state of Texas that the CDC failed to explain why children traveling alone were exempted from Title 42 and gave the administration a week to appeal. Instead, the CDC lifted the order — but only for unaccompanied children. The Associated Press left a phone message with the office of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and also sent an email. There was no immediate response. Migrants have been expelled more than 1.6 million times under Title 42, named for a 1944 public health law. Biden has kept the order in place but exempted unaccompanied children during his first days in office. Prominent Democrats and advocacy groups have been pressing to end Title 42 for all migrants. “It is not a humane or effective solution to securing our border,” U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, tweeted on Friday. Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
Lloyd Austin to governors: Guard troops must get COVID-19 vaccine
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, in letters to seven governors, is reaffirming the need for members of their states’ Army and Air National Guards to get the mandatory COVID-19 vaccine or lose their Guard status. In nearly identical letters signed late last week, Austin tells the governors that the virus “takes our service members out of the fight, temporarily or permanently, and jeopardizes our ability to meet mission requirements,” according to copies obtained Monday by The Associated Press. The letters, which have not been publicly released, come as the military services begin to ramp up the number of active-duty troops being discharged for refusing the vaccine. Nearly 600 Marines, airmen, and sailors have been thrown out of the military or dismissed from entry-level training at boot camps as of last week. Two of the letters — to Alaska and Texas state leaders — note that they have an ongoing lawsuit over the vaccine and that, Austin said, limited his ability to comment further on their concerns. Texas, Oklahoma, and Alaska filed lawsuits challenging the military’s vaccine mandate, but a federal judge has already rejected the Oklahoma challenge. The Alaska governor was one of five Republican state leaders who sent a letter to Austin asking him not to enforce the mandate on National Guard troops. The other four were governors from Wyoming, Mississippi, Iowa, and Nebraska. The latest letters were to those five governors along with Idaho and Texas. Austin’s response to them mirrors the letter he sent in late November to Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, defending the department’s vaccine mandate as necessary to maintain military readiness and the health of the force. At the time, he warned that failure to get the vaccine “may lead to a prohibition on the member’s participation in drills and training” and could “jeopardize the member’s status in the National Guard.” In the new letters, Austin changed a keyword in that sentence, telling the governors that failure to get the vaccine “will” lead to prohibiting members from participating in drills and jeopardize their status. “To ensure that we maintain a healthy and ready military force capable of accomplishing our mission to defend this Nation and to protect the American people, vaccination against COVID-19 is an essential military readiness requirement for all components and units of the military,” including the Guard, he said. The governors getting the letters were: Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon, Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy, Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves, Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, Idaho Gov. Brad Little, and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, all Republicans. Alaska joined the lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. Texas has more than 20,000 National Guard members, the largest contingent of any state. About 40% of its Army National Guard are currently refusing to receive the COVID-19 vaccination “for either religious accommodation needs or otherwise,” according to the lawsuit filed in a federal court in East Texas. It added that more than 200 airmen in the Texas Guard are also refusing the vaccine. The deadline for Air Guard members to get the shots has passed, but Army Guard members have until this June. Thousands of members of the active-duty military and the reserves are seeking medical, administrative, or religious exemptions or refusing the shots. But overall, the percentage of troops, particularly active duty members, who quickly got the vaccine is high – with at least 97% in each service getting at least one shot as of last week. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly 87% of the U.S. population age 18 or older has gotten at least one shot. Republished with the permission of the Associated Press.
Ken Paxton, Eric Schmitt ask court to require Biden administration to finish border wall
As Texas and Missouri attorneys general ask a federal court to require the Biden administration to immediately resume building the border wall with funds allocated by Congress, the Department of Homeland Security announced it was using the funds on environmental projects instead. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt sued the administration in October. In November, they filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to require it to resume building the border wall using funds already appropriated by Congress to do so. President Joe Biden halted construction of the wall as one of his first acts in office after Congress had allocated $6 billion for the wall’s construction between fiscal years 2018 and 2021. Within a month of the AG’s motion, DHS issued a statement saying it would be using the money on environmental and clean-up projects in certain areas of Arizona, California, and Texas. Instead of building the wall, DHS is spending the money to “address life, safety, environmental, and remediation requirements for border barrier projects” located in the San Diego, El Centro, Yuma, Tucson, El Paso, and Del Rio Border Patrol Sectors. They include drainage projects to prevent flooding, installing and completing permanent erosion control measures, and construction and maintenance of access roads, including adding guardrails, signage, and integrating existing roadways, among other projects. DHS is also in the process of terminating all Department of Defense and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers border wall construction projects. It currently costs taxpayers $3 million a day to not build the wall because of contractual obligations with the construction firm tasked with building it. DHS also plans to dispose of already purchased materials left on the ground when construction of the wall was halted. The Biden administration “continues to call on Congress to cancel remaining border wall funding and instead fund smarter border security measures that are proven to be more effective at improving safety and security at the border.” The administration also claims it “inherited a broken immigration system – one that wasted billions of taxpayer dollars and neither kept the American people safe nor adhered to our values.” It considers the border wall an example of the Trump administration’s “misplaced priorities and failure to manage migration in a safe, orderly and humane way.” Of the 450 miles of the wall built by the Trump administration, only 52 miles was constructed “where no barrier previously existed, with some wall segments costing American taxpayers up to $46 million per mile,” the administration adds. “The effort diverted critical resources away from military training facilities and schools and caused serious risks to life, safety, and the environment. It also took attention away from genuine security challenges, like drug smuggling and human trafficking.” Paxton and Schmitt argue the wall has proved to be a successful deterrent and Biden’s decision to halt construction violates the Separation of Powers, the Take Care Clause, the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Consolidated Appropriations Acts of 2020 and 2021. “The Biden Administration is refusing to spend funds already appropriated by Congress to continue construction of the Southwest border wall, even as the Department of Homeland Security has admitted that a physical border wall is an effective defense in curtailing illegal immigration,” Schmitt said. Their brief points to a 2018 DHS assessment of the effectiveness of physical barriers in which it said, “Walls Work. When it comes to stopping drugs and illegal aliens from crossing our borders, walls have proven extremely effective.” DHS noted that border wall construction in one sector alone led to a 90% decrease in border apprehensions. Paxton maintains that human and drug trafficking has increased as a result of the Biden administration’s open border policies and its response to the crisis “is irresponsible, inhumane, and inexcusable.” “The congressionally approved border wall will help law enforcement along the border and restore order” to Texas, he said, adding, “A physical wall is essential for border security, and I am demanding that President Biden do his part to keep Texas and America safe.” Schmitt, who has been to the southern border, recently wrote Biden, who hasn’t been to the border: “Your administration’s failure to control the massive influx of migrants – an influx invited by your lax policies – has opened the floodgates to human trafficking and will have lasting effects on Missouri and the rest of the country. Our office has been a leader in combating human trafficking. Those efforts are now in jeopardy because of your policies. Missourians want and need a secure border.” By Bethany Blankley Republished with the permission of The Center Square.
