First over-the-counter birth control pill gets FDA approval
Federal regulators on Thursday approved the nation’s first over-the-counter birth control pill in a landmark decision that will soon allow American women and girls to obtain contraceptive medication as easily as they buy aspirin and eyedrops. The Food and Drug Administration cleared once-a-day Opill to be sold without a prescription, making it the first such medication to be moved out from behind the pharmacy counter. The manufacturer, Ireland-based Perrigo, won’t start shipping the pill until early next year, and there will be no age restrictions on sales. Hormone-based pills have long been the most common form of birth control in the U.S., used by tens of millions of women since the 1960s. Until now, all of them required a prescription. Medical societies and women’s health groups have pushed for wider access for decades, noting that an estimated 45% of the 6 million annual pregnancies in the U.S. are unintended. Teens and girls, women of color, and those with low incomes report greater hurdles in getting prescriptions and picking them up. The challenges can include paying for a doctor’s visit, getting time off from work, and finding child care. “This is really a transformation in access to contraceptive care,” said Kelly Blanchard, president of Ibis Reproductive Health, a nonprofit group that supported the approval. “Hopefully, this will help people overcome those barriers that exist now.” Perrigo says Opill could be an important new option for the estimated 15 million U.S. women who currently use no birth control or less effective methods, such as condoms. They are a fifth of women who are child-bearing age. But how many women will actually gain access depends on the medication’s price, which Perrigo plans to announce later this year. “The reason why so many of us worked tirelessly for years to get over-the-counter birth control pills is to improve access … cost shouldn’t be one of those barriers,” said Dr. Pratima Gupta of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Most older birth control pills cost $15 to $30 for a month’s supply without insurance coverage. Over-the-counter medicines are generally much cheaper than prescriptions, but they typically aren’t covered by insurance. Forcing insurers to cover over-the-counter birth control would require a regulatory change by the federal government, which women’s advocates are urging the Biden administration to implement. The FDA approval gives U.S. women another birth control option amid the legal and political battles over reproductive health, including last year’s reversal of Roe v. Wade, which has upended abortion access across the U.S. That said, Opill’s approval is unrelated to the ongoing court battles over the abortion pill mifepristone. And anti-abortion groups have generally emphasized that they do not oppose contraceptives, which are used to prevent pregnancies, not end them. However, that has done little to ease fears that contraception could someday become a target. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a separate opinion in which he explicitly called on his colleagues to put the high court’s same-sex marriage, gay sex, and contraception cases on the table. In the last year, the FDA has faced pressure from Democratic politicians, health advocates, and medical professionals to improve access to birth control. The American Medical Association and other leading medical groups backed Opill’s application for over-the-counter status. Birth control pills are available without a prescription across much of South America, Asia, and Africa. Perrigo submitted years of research to the FDA to show that women could understand and follow instructions for using the pill. Thursday’s approval came despite some concerns by FDA scientists about the company’s results, including whether women with certain underlying medical conditions would understand that they shouldn’t take the drug. The FDA’s action only applies to Opill. It’s in an older class of contraceptives, sometimes called minipills, that contain a single synthetic hormone and generally carry fewer side effects than more popular combination hormone pills. Women’s health advocates hope the decision paves the way for more over-the-counter birth control options and, eventually, for abortion pills to do the same. An outside panel of FDA advisers unanimously voted in favor of the switch at a hearing in May where dozens of public speakers called for Opill’s approval. Dyvia Huitron was among those who presented, explaining how she has been unable to get prescription birth control more than three years after becoming sexually active. The 19-year-old University of Alabama student said she still isn’t comfortable getting a prescription because the school’s health system reports medical exams and medications to parents. “My parents did not let me go on the pill,” Huitron said in a recent interview. “There was just a lot of cultural stigma around being sexually active before you’re married.” While she uses other forms of contraception, “I would have much preferred to have birth control and use these additional methods to ensure that I was being as safe as possible.” Advocates were particularly interested in Opill because it raised fewer safety concerns. The pill was first approved in the U.S. five decades ago. “It’s been around a long time, and we have a large amount of data supporting that this pill is safe and effective for over-the-counter use,” Blanchard said. Newer birth control pills typically combine two hormones, estrogen, and progestin, which can help make periods lighter and more regular. But their use carries a heightened risk of blood clots, and they shouldn’t be used by women at risk for heart problems, such as those who smoke and are over 35. Opill has only progestin, which prevents pregnancy by blocking sperm from reaching the cervix. It must be taken around the same time daily to be most effective. In its internal review published in May, the FDA noted that some women in Perrigo’s study had trouble understanding the drug’s labeling information. In particular, the instructions warn that women with a history of breast cancer should not take the pill because it could spur tumor growth. Common side effects include irregular vaginal bleeding, headaches, dizziness, and cramps, according to the FDA. The label also cautions that certain drugs can interfere with
Tommy Tuberville continues to denounces taxpayer-funded elective abortions at VA facilities
Earlier this week, U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville sent a letter to U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Secretary Denis McDonough demanding answers about the agency’s new rule that funds abortions at VA medical facilities. “I have asked several times for data and materials on the implementation of the rule, but your Department has refused to provide information, claiming privacy and sensitivity issues,” wrote Senator Tuberville. “As a Member of this Committee, with a duty to provide oversight of services to veterans, taxpayer funding, and effective legislation, I reject the notion that VA can intentionally withhold information from Congress.” Tuberville has been asking questions about the VA’s revised abortion rule since a committee hearing in September 2022. Tuberville followed up with submitted questions in writing the same month and again in February 2023. “I have asked several times for data and materials on the implementation of the rule, but your Department has refused to provide information, claiming privacy and sensitivity issues,” Tuberville wrote. “I submitted a question for the record related to the hearing on September 21, 2022, regarding to this rule’s implementation. On February 15, 2023, I asked, again, for information related to this rule. On March 15, 2023, at a hearing of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee on the Electronic Health Record Modernization program, I asked Under Secretary for Health, Dr. [Shereef] Elnahal, for information on the implementation of the rule, and he refused to provide any information. As of today, I still have not received answers to my questions.” Tuberville claims that to this point, the VA and Secretary McDonough have refused to fully comply with his requests for information. “I have asked several times for data and materials on the implementation of the rule, but your Department has refused to provide information, claiming privacy and sensitivity issues,” Tuberville charged. Tuberville gave the VA a deadline of May 17 to fully comply with his formal request for information and answer the questions he posed to the Biden Administration. Abortions are illegal in Alabama, but the Biden Administration has sought to thwart state law and the Alabama Constitution. Tuberville has voted to defund abortions at VA facilities. Sen. Tuberville has drawn criticism from the Biden administration and the Department of Defense for his holding up of military and Department of Defense promotions over his disagreement with the Biden administration’s controversial abortion policies in pro-life states. The Biden administration has denounced the Dobbs v. Jackson U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade and maintains that abortion is a necessary healthcare procedure. Tuberville was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2020 following a long successful career as a football coach, sports broadcaster, and educator. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Supreme Court preserves access to abortion pill for now
The Supreme Court on Friday preserved women’s access to a drug used in the most common method of abortion, rejecting lower-court restrictions while a lawsuit continues. The justices granted emergency requests from the Biden administration and New York-based Danco Laboratories, maker of the drug mifepristone. They are appealing a lower court ruling that would roll back the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of mifepristone. The drug has been approved for use in the U.S. since 2000, and more than 5 million people have used it. Mifepristone is used in combination with a second drug, misoprostol, in more than half of all abortions in the U.S. The court’s action Friday almost certainly will leave access to mifepristone unchanged at least into next year, as appeals play out, including a potential appeal to the high court. The next stop for the case is at the New Orleans-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which has set arguments in the case for May 17. Two of the nine justices — Samuel Alito, the author of last year’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade, and Clarence Thomas — voted to allow restrictions to take effect, and Alito issued a four-page dissent. No other justices commented on the court’s one-paragraph order, and the court did not release a full vote breakdown. President Joe Biden praised the high court for keeping mifepristone available while the court fight continues. “The stakes could not be higher for women across America. I will continue to fight politically-driven attacks on women’s health. But let’s be clear — the American people must continue to use their vote as their voice and elect a Congress who will pass a law restoring the protections of Roe v. Wade,” Biden said in a statement. Alliance Defending Freedom, representing abortion opponents challenging the FDA’s approval of mifepristone, downplayed the court’s action. “As is common practice, the Supreme Court has decided to maintain the status quo that existed prior to our lawsuit while our challenge to the FDA’s illegal approval of chemical abortion drugs and its removal of critical safeguards for those drugs moves forward,” ADF lawyer Erik Baptist said in a statement. The justices weighed arguments that allowing restrictions contained in lower-court rulings to take effect would severely disrupt the availability of mifepristone. The Supreme Court had initially said it would decide by Wednesday whether the restrictions could take effect while the case continues. A one-sentence order signed by Alito on Wednesday gave the justices two additional days, without explanation. The challenge to mifepristone is the first abortion controversy to reach the nation’s highest court since its conservative majority overturned Roe v. Wade 10 months ago and allowed more than a dozen states to effectively ban abortion outright. In his majority opinion last June, Alito said one reason for overturning Roe was to remove federal courts from the abortion fight. “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives,” he wrote. But even with their court victory, abortion opponents returned to federal court with a new target: medication abortions, which make up more than half of all abortions in the United States. Women seeking to end their pregnancies in the first 10 weeks without more invasive surgical abortion can take mifepristone, along with misoprostol. The FDA has eased the terms of mifepristone’s use over the years, including allowing it to be sent through the mail in states that allow access. The abortion opponents filed suit in Texas in November, asserting that the FDA’s original approval of mifepristone 23 years ago and subsequent changes were flawed. They won a ruling on April 7 by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, revoking FDA approval of mifepristone. The judge gave the Biden administration and Danco Laboratories a week to appeal and seek to keep his ruling on hold. Responding to a quick appeal, two more Trump appointees on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the FDA’s original approval would stand for now. But Judges Andrew Oldham and Kurt Engelhardt said most of the rest of Kacsmaryk’s ruling could take effect while the case winds through federal courts. Their ruling would have effectively nullified changes made by the FDA starting in 2016, including extending from seven to 10 weeks of pregnancy when mifepristone can be safely used. The court also would have halted sending the drug in the mail or dispensing it as a generic, and patients who seek it would have had to make three in-person visits with a doctor. Women also might have been required to take a higher dosage of the drug than the FDA says is necessary. The administration and Danco have said that chaos would ensue if those restrictions were to take effect while the case proceeds. Potentially adding to the confusion, a federal judge in Washington has ordered the FDA to preserve access to mifepristone under the current rules in 17 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia that filed a separate lawsuit. The Biden administration has said the rulings conflict and create an untenable situation for the FDA. Alito questioned the argument that chaos would result, saying the administration “has not dispelled doubts that it would even obey an unfavorable order in these cases.” And a new legal wrinkle threatened even more complications. GenBioPro, which makes the generic version of mifepristone, filed a lawsuit Wednesday to preemptively block the FDA from removing its drug from the market, in the event that the Supreme Court doesn’t intervene. The Supreme Court was only being asked to block the lower-court rulings through the end of the legal case. The appeals court has sped up its review, but there is no timetable for a ruling. Any appeal to the Supreme Court would follow within three months of a ruling, but with no deadline for the justices to decide whether to review the case. Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
U.S. Supreme Court extends access to abortion pill to Friday
The Supreme Court is leaving women’s access to a widely used abortion pill untouched until at least Friday, while the justices consider whether to allow restrictions on the drug mifepristone to take effect. The court is dealing with a new abortion controversy less than a year after its conservative majority overturned Roe v. Wade and allowed more than a dozen states to effectively ban abortion outright. At stake now is whether to allow restrictions on mifepristone ordered by a lower court to take effect while a legal challenge to the medication’s Food and Drug Administration approval continues. The justices had at first given themselves a Wednesday evening deadline in a fast-moving case from Texas in which abortion opponents are seeking to roll back FDA approval of mifepristone, which is used in the most common method of abortion in the United States. But on Wednesday afternoon, Justice Samuel Alito issued a one-sentence order giving the court more time and indicating it expects to act by Friday night. Alito, the justice in charge of handling emergency appeals from Texas, provided no explanation. The justices are scheduled to meet for a private conference Friday, where they could talk about the issue. The additional time could be part of an effort to craft an order that has broad support among the justices. Or one or more justices might be writing a separate opinion, and asked for a couple of extra days. The drug first won FDA approval in 2000, and conditions on its use have been loosened in recent years, including making it available by mail in states that allow access. The Biden administration and New York-based Danco Laboratories, the maker of the drug, want the nation’s highest court to reject limits on mifepristone’s use imposed by lower courts, at least as long as the legal case makes its way through the courts. They say women who want the drug and providers who dispense it will face chaos if limits on the drug take effect. Depending on what the justices decide, that could include requiring women to take a higher dosage of the drug than the FDA says is necessary. Alliance Defending Freedom, representing anti-abortion doctors and medical groups in a challenge to the drug, is defending the rulings in calling on the Supreme Court to restrict access now. Complicating the situation, a federal judge in Washington has ordered the FDA to preserve access to mifepristone under the current rules in 17 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia that filed a separate lawsuit. The Biden administration has said the rulings conflict and create an untenable situation for the FDA. Even as the abortion landscape changed dramatically in several states, abortion opponents set their sights on medication abortions, which make up more than half of all abortions in the United States. The abortion opponents filed suit in November in Amarillo, Texas. The legal challenge quickly reached the Supreme Court after a federal judge issued a ruling on April 7 that would revoke FDA approval of mifepristone, one of two drugs used in medication abortions. Less than a week later, a federal appeals court modified the ruling so that mifepristone would remain available while the case continues, but with limits. The appeals court said the drug should only be approved through seven weeks of pregnancy for now, even though the FDA, since 2016, has endorsed its use through 10 weeks of pregnancy. The court also said that the drug can’t be mailed or dispensed as a generic and that patients who seek it need to make three in-person visits with a doctor, among other things. The generic version of mifepristone makes up two-thirds of the supply in the United States, its manufacturer, Las Vegas-based GenBioPro Inc., wrote in a court filing that underscored the perils of allowing the restrictions to be put into effect. In the latest legal twist surrounding the case, GenBioPro filed a lawsuit Wednesday to preemptively block the FDA from removing its drug from the market, in the event that the Supreme Court doesn’t intervene. The FDA approved the company’s generic pill in 2019, based on data and studies showing it is essentially identical to the original version of mifepristone. Both versions have been studied extensively and deemed safe for women. If the justices aren’t inclined to block the ruling from taking effect for now, the Democratic administration and Danco have a fallback argument, asking the court to take up the challenge to mifepristone, hear arguments and decide the case by early summer. The court only rarely takes such a step before at least one appeals court has thoroughly examined the legal issues involved. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans already has ordered an accelerated schedule for hearing the case, with arguments set for May 17. Mifepristone has been available for use in medication abortions in the United States since the FDA granted approval in 2000. Since then, more than 5 million women have used it, along with another drug, misoprostol, to induce abortions. Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
Democrats seek repeal or exemptions in state abortion ban
Alabama’s abortion ban that took effect this summer allows no exemptions for pregnancies resulting from rape and incest. Democrats in the Alabama Legislature are seeking to change that but face impossible odds without some Republican support. Sen. Vivian Davis Figures, D-Mobile, filed legislation Tuesday to allow exemptions for rape and incest. Similar legislation is planned in the Alabama House of Representatives to repeal the ban or add exemptions. But Republicans hold lopsided majorities in both chambers, meaning the bills are doomed without garnering some GOP support. Figures told The Associated Press in a statement that a victim of rape and incest would again be traumatized “if she does not have a choice and she is forced to have a child that was fathered by a rapist or a family member via an incestuous act.” “Politicians have no business playing doctor or forcing a child to give birth by her rapist,” said Democratic Rep. Mary Moore of Birmingham agreed. “Politicians have no business playing doctor or forcing a child to give birth by her rapist,” she said. Alabama lawmakers in 2019 approved a near-total abortion ban, but it did not take effect until this summer when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe. v. Wade, the decision that had guaranteed the nationwide right to an abortion. A federal judge soon after lifted the injunction that had blocked the Alabama ban. Some Republican lawmakers in 2019 described the strict ban as a legal strategy to challenge Roe as lawmakers in conservative states hoped to get the issue before a more conservative Supreme Court. Republican Rep. Terri Collins, the sponsor of the 2019 ban, said at the time that lawmakers could come back and write a new bill, and debate exemptions, if Roe was overturned. Collins told The Associated Press earlier this year that she wanted to have conversations with fellow Republicans to gauge if members want to keep the law as is or make changes. On Wednesday, Collins said that she was focused on her education bills at the moment. “I think it’s an issue that our members will bring forth on what they want to do,” House Speaker Nathaniel Ledbetter said Wednesday when asked about possible revisions to the abortion ban. Ledbetter noted that a majority of Alabama voters in 2018 voted to put anti-abortion language in the Alabama Constitution. The constitutional amendment saying Alabama recognizes “the rights of the unborn child” was approved by 59% of voters. “I feel good about where we’re at. We’re for life,” Ledbetter said, adding that lawmakers are working on bills to make adoption easier. Eric Johnston, an abortion opponent who helped write the 2019 ban, has argued that the constitutional amendment would prevent lawmakers from adding exceptions. Democrats argue that Republicans went too far with the ban. “It is time they understood that they made a crucial mistake. Women want access to safe abortions near them. … It should be their decision made with their doctor,” Figures wrote in a statement. Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
Sen. Tommy Tuberville and Rep. Michael Cloud introduce resolution to block VA abortion Rule
U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville and U.S. Representative Michael Cloud led more than 65 Senate and House colleagues in introducing a bicameral joint resolution voicing their disapproval under the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to nullify a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rule that provides abortion services through the taxpayer-funded VA health care system. The CRA gives Congress the authority to review major rules issued by federal agencies before they take effect. If Congress disapproves of a rule via resolution, the rule will have no force or effect under the law. “Using our VA medical facilities to provide publicly-funded abortions is an unconstitutional abuse of the system, and it will not be tolerated,” said Sen. Tuberville. “No taxpayer should be forced to pay for abortion services that disregard the will of millions of Americans in states with legal protections for life, rightfully upheld by the Supreme Court last year. The interim final rule highlights this administration’s willingness to ignore the law and exploit limited federal resources to serve their extreme abortion agenda.” “The Biden Administration continues to advance their radical abortion-on-demand agenda, this time through the Department of Veterans Affairs,” said Rep. Cloud. “Directing the Department of Veterans Affairs to perform abortions is a clear abuse of the law, and it forces taxpayers to fund abortions, something the majority of Americans oppose. I will always be a voice for the unborn and oppose taxpayer-funded abortions.” The VA published the interim final rule in September 2022, just a few months after the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling that reversed the controversial 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. “This is a patient safety decision,” said Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs. “Pregnant Veterans and VA beneficiaries deserve to have access to world-class reproductive care when they need it most. That’s what our nation owes them, and that’s what we at VA will deliver.” Dobbs returned the decision to legislate on abortion to the states. The people of Alabama had already voted to ban abortions in Alabama and protect the lives of unborn Alabamians, meaning that the Dobbs ruling effectively made abortion illegal in Alabama. The Biden rule would thwart the Alabama Constitution and the will of the people of Alabama by using VA medical facilities to perform abortions in defiance of state law. Tuberville and Cloud maintain that this not only violates state laws but also is in clear conflict with Section 106 of the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992, which explicitly prohibits the VA from providing abortion services. The rule also extends abortion services to certain veterans’ dependents and fails to provide any conscious protections for VA medical staff. U.S. Sen. Katie Britt and Congressman Jerry Carl also signed on as original cosponsors of the Tuberville-Cloud resolution. The joint resolution introduced by Tuberville and Cloud is endorsed by Susan B. Anthony Pro Life-America, March for Life, National Right to Life, Catholic Vote, Heritage Action, and Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee. While Republicans have a narrow majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, Democrats control the Senate and are unlikely to get behind Tuberville’s resolution. The rule has been challenged in the Courts by conservative attorneys general, including Alabama’s Steve Marshall. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Supreme Court leak investigation fizzles
An investigation into who leaked a draft of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the opinion that overturned Roe v. Wade, was unable to determine who was responsible. The U.S. Supreme Court released a report from Supreme Court Marshal Gail Curley on Thursday. “The team has to date been unable to identify a person responsible by a preponderance of the evidence,” the court said in a statement. The leak, which was a significant scoop for Politico, was a major breach of trust for the Supreme Court. “The leak was no mere misguided attempt at protest,” the court said in a statement. “It was a grave assault on the judicial process.” But the investigation was unable to pinpoint a culprit. “After months of diligent analysis of forensic evidence and interviews of almost 100 employees, the Marshal’s team determined that no further investigation was warranted with respect to many of the ’82 employees [who] had access to electronic or hard copies of the draft opinion,’ ” according to the statement. Republished with the permission of The Center Square.
Florida could lower abortion ban from 15 weeks to 12 weeks
Changes could be coming to Florida’s abortion laws after the incoming senate president, Sen. Kathleen Passidomo, said she would like to see Florida’s abortion ban go from 15 weeks’ gestation to 12 weeks’ gestation. The state of Florida banned abortion in 1900, but that ban was overturned in 1973 by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Roe v. Wade case. That ruling itself was overturned by the Supreme Court in June. Anticipating that decision, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis moved to ban abortions from 15 weeks’ gestation, with the law making no exceptions for cases pertaining to rape and incest. At the signing of the bill, DeSantis said, “House Bill 5 protects babies in the womb who have beating hearts, who can move, who can taste, who can see, and who can feel pain. Life is a sacred gift worthy of our protection, and I am proud to sign this great piece of legislation, which represents the most significant protections for life in the state’s modern history.” Abortion changes had already happened in June 2020 when DeSantis signed a law that states minors must provide written permission from a parent or guardian to have an abortion. Founder and executive director of Florida Voice for the Unborn, Andrew Shirvell, told The Center Square that lowering the ban from 15 weeks to 12 will not change abortion rates in Florida, as most abortions are sought before then. “The vast majority of abortions in Florida take place prior to 12 weeks gestation. Accordingly, a new Florida law banning abortions after 12 weeks gestation – as opposed to 15 weeks gestation – would do almost nothing to curb Florida’s horrendous abortion rate,” Shirvell said. “Moreover, permitting an unborn child to be killed via abortion after 12 weeks gestation, if the child was conceived as a result of rape or incest – as Senator Passidomo apparently wants to do – is a step backwards, since the 15-week abortion ban does not allow for those so-called ‘exceptions.’” Shirvell added there should be no reason why Florida couldn’t completely ban abortion since Roe is now overturned. “Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade earlier this year, enacting a 12-week abortion ban might have made sense. Such incremental measures, including ‘Heartbeat’ laws prohibiting abortions after six weeks gestation, were designed, in part, to challenge Roe. Now that Roe has been overturned, Florida and her sister states have been given the green light to completely protect all unborn children from conception,” Shirvell added. Nearly a dozen Republican-controlled states have done that already. he noted. The new speaker of the Florida House, Palm Coast Republican Paul Renner, said that the Republican supermajority in Florida will likely lead to more pro-life legislation in the future. “I want to see us move in a pro-life direction, but I’m also sensitive to the fact that 50 years of Roe v. Wade has developed a culture and an expectation around this issue that is not going to change overnight, and I say that as some who believes that life begins at conception,” Renner said during his first on-camera appearance since becoming speaker. “We have 85 members, we have supermajorities in the House and Senate, and I can tell you they are pro-life majorities, I’m pro-life, I’d like to see us move in a pro-life direction,” Renner said. “I think we need to look at how we can balance some of those interests, and so we will take a look at where everybody is in the caucus.” Republished with the permission of The Center Square.
U.S. Senate passes gay marriage bill
The U.S. Senate voted Tuesday to pass a bill that would federally codify same-sex and interracial marriages. A handful of Republicans joined Democrats in voting for the “Respect for Marriage Act,” which passed 61-36 and will now head to the House of Representatives. “This Senate has passed the Respect for Marriage Act!” Democratic Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said, “Because no one should be discriminated against because of who they love.” Though neither same-sex nor interracial marriages are currently illegal in any state, lawmakers sought to codify protections in federal law. As The Center Square previously reported, U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc., has helped lead the effort. Her office said the legislation would “require the federal government to recognize a marriage between two individuals if the marriage was valid in the state where it was performed.” Notably, the bill would “guarantee that valid marriages between two individuals are given full faith and credit, regardless of the couple’s sex, race, ethnicity or national origin, but the bill would not require a State to issue a marriage license contrary to state law.” The U.S. Supreme Court’s overturning of the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion ruling motivated this legislative effort as some Democrats said same-sex marriage protections the court ruled on during the Obama administration could be at risk. The 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges precedent required states to allow same-sex marriages. Under the new law, in the event that Obergfell is overturned, states would be allowed to ban gay marriages but would have to recognize gay marriages that were performed in other states. The legislation repeals the federal Defense of Marriage Act, but state laws preventing same-sex marriage are still on the books in some states and would take effect if Obergefell were ever overturned. From the bill’s official summary: Specifically, the bill repeals and replaces provisions that define, for purposes of federal law, marriage as between a man and a woman and spouse as a person of the opposite sex with provisions that recognize any marriage that is valid under state law (The Supreme Court held that the current provisions were unconstitutional in United States v. Windsor in 2013.) The bill also repeals and replaces provisions that do not require states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states with provisions that prohibit the denial of full faith and credit or any right or claim relating to out-of-state marriages on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin. (The Supreme Court held that state laws barring same-sex marriages were unconstitutional in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015; the Court held that state laws barring interracial marriages were unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia in 1967.) The bill allows the Department of Justice to bring a civil action and establishes a private right of action for violations. President Joe Biden torpedoed a similar hope among Democrats to codify abortion protections after the midterm elections, saying his party will not have the votes. Republished with the permission of The Center Square.
Barry Moore joins colleagues in calling on VA to rescind abortion rule
A number of states, including Alabama, have outlawed abortions following the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs versus Jackson Women’s Health Organization. A defiant Biden administration has announced that they will perform abortions at Veterans Administration facilities in response to the closing of the abortion clinics by state law. On Thursday, U.S. Representative Barry Moore joined a letter led by Reps. Andrew Clyde and Michael Cloud to Veterans Affairs Secretary Denis McDonough, demanding he immediately rescind the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) new rule. Moore was one of 43 Republicans to join the letter. “The VA is supposed to be focused on caring for our nation’s veterans, especially in the face of a massive backlog that has thousands of veterans waiting months for critical care, but instead they are prioritizing the extinguishing of innocent lives,” Moore stated in a press release. “Congress needs to hold President [Joe] Biden and Secretary McDonough accountable for violating current law as this flies in the face of numerous state abortion laws and the Hyde Amendment, which bars taxpayer funded abortions for active military members.” “It is incredibly disturbing to us that this rule publication comes out in apparent response to the recent Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling,” the Republican Congressmembers wrote. “The Supreme Court rightfully overturned the misguided Roe v. Wade decision and returned the issue of abortion to the American people to decide through state legislatures. If this SCOTUS ruling is the basis for your alleged “good cause” for issuing the interim final rule, your Department is bypassing regular rulemaking processes as part of a blatant political response to a Supreme Court decision, which is wholly unacceptable and inappropriate.” “Your Department is knowingly violating current law as the Hyde Amendment restricts abortions for active military members, and Section 106 of the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992 explicitly prohibits the VA from providing abortion services – both of which are still the law of the land,” the letter continued. “Make no mistake: your Department’s decision to expand and promote abortion services – “regardless of state restrictions”– is blatantly illegal. You must reverse course immediately, or we will be forced to take further action to hold your Department accountable for this overreach.” “The VA should be focused on providing timely, high-quality care to our nation’s veterans, not murdering precious citizens with taxpayer dollars,” said Clyde. “If Secretary McDonough refuses to rescind this reprehensible and unlawful rule, Congress must swiftly hold the Biden Administration accountable for this unprecedented overreach and abuse of power.” “President Biden is again attempting to twist the law to his will by illegally authorizing the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide abortion services,” Congressman Cloud said. “The VA should remain committed to providing critical care to support the lives of our veterans, not be another last ditch attempt by the Biden administration to provide taxpayer-funded abortions.” Barry Moore is in his first term representing Alabama’s First Congressional District. He previously served two terms in the Alabama House of Representatives from 2010 to 2018. To connect with the author of this story, or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Lindsey Graham unveils nationwide abortion ban after 15 weeks
Upending the political debate, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham introduced a nationwide abortion ban Tuesday, sending shockwaves through both parties and igniting fresh debate on a fraught issue weeks before the midterm elections that will determine control of Congress. Graham’s own Republican Party leaders did not immediately embrace his abortion ban bill, which would prohibit the procedure after 15 weeks of pregnancy with rare exceptions, and has almost no chance of becoming law in the Democratic-held Congress. Democrats torched it as an alarming signal of where “MAGA” Republicans are headed if they win control of the House and Senate in November. “America’s got to make some decisions,” Graham said at a news conference at the Capitol. The South Carolina Republican said that rather than shying away from the Supreme Court’s ruling this summer overturning Roe v. Wade’s nearly 50-year right to abortion access, Republicans are preparing to fight to make a nationwide abortion ban federal law. “Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, we’re going nowhere,” the senator said while flanked by female advocates from the anti-abortion movement. “We welcome the debate. We welcome the vote in the United States Senate as to what America should look like in 2022.” Reaction was swift, fierce, and unwavering from Democrats who viewed Graham’s legislation as an extreme example of the far-right’s hold on the GOP and as a political gift of self-inflicted pain for Republican candidates now having to answer questions about an abortion ban heading toward the midterm elections. “A nationwide abortion ban — that’s the contrast between the two parties, plain and simple,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said. Sen. Patty Murray, a Democrat from Washington who is in her own fight for reelection, said Republicans “want to force” women to stay pregnant and deliver babies. “To anyone who thought they were safe, here is the painful reality,” she said. “Republicans are coming for your rights.” The sudden turn of events comes in a razor-tight election season as Republicans hoping to win control of Congress are struggling to recapture momentum, particularly after the Supreme Court’s landmark decision sparked deep concerns among some voters, with signs of female voters peeling away from the GOP. In a midterm election where the party out of the White House traditionally holds an advantage, even more so this year with President Joe Biden’s lackluster approval ratings, the Democrats have regained their own momentum pushing back the GOP candidates in House and Senate races. Tuesday’s announcement set up an immediate split screen with Biden and Democrats poised to celebrate their accomplishments in a ceremony at the White House after passage of the Inflation Reduction Act and Republicans forced to answer for Graham’s proposed abortion ban. “This bill is wildly out of step with what Americans believe,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement. “While President Biden and Vice President [Kamala] Harris are focused on the historic passage of the Inflation Reduction Act to reduce the cost of prescription drugs, health care, and energy – and to take unprecedented action to address climate change — Republicans in Congress are focused on taking rights away from millions of women,” Jean-Pierre said. Graham’s legislation has almost zero chance of becoming law, but it elevates the abortion issue at a time when other Republicans would prefer to focus on inflation, border security, and Biden’s leadership. The Republican bill would ban abortions nationwide after 15 weeks of pregnancy, except in cases of rape, incest, or risk to the physical health of the mother. Graham said it would put the U.S. on par with many countries in Europe and around the world. In particular, Graham’s bill would leave in place state laws that are more restrictive. That provision is notable because many Republicans have argued that the Supreme Court’s ruling leaves the abortion issue for the states to decide. But the legislation from the Republicans makes it clear states are only allowed to decide the issue if their abortion bans are more stringent. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, who is one seat away from majority control, declined to embrace Graham’s legislation. “I think every Republican senator running this year in these contested races has an answer as to how they feel about the issue,” McConnell said. He said most GOP senators prefer having the issue dealt with by the states rather than at the federal level. “So I leave it up to our candidates who are quite capable of handling this issue to determine for them what their response is.” The Democratic senators most at risk this fall and other Democratic candidates running for Congress appeared eager to fight against Graham’s proposed nationwide abortion ban. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, a Nevada Democrat, tweeted that Graham “and every other anti-choice extremist can take a hike.” Her Republican opponent, Adam Laxalt, has during his campaign insisted that abortion is protected in the state constitution, which it may no longer be under this bill. In Colorado, another Democrat up for reelection, Sen. Michael Bennet, tweeted: “A nationwide abortion ban is outrageous. ” Bennet pledged “to defend a woman’s right to make her own health care decisions, no matter what ZIP code she lives in. We cannot afford to let the Republicans take back the Senate.” His opponent in Colorado, Republican Joe O’Dea, who supports putting abortion access that had been guaranteed under Roe v. Wade into law, agreed, in part: “A Republican ban is as reckless and tone deaf as is Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer’s hostility to considering any compromise on late-term abortion, parental notification or conscience protections for religious hospitals.” The races for control of Congress are tight in the split 50-50 Senate, where one seat determines majority control, and in the House, where Speaker Nancy Pelosi can afford to lose only a few seats. Pelosi called Graham’s bill the “clearest signal of extreme MAGA Republicans’ intent to criminalize women’s health freedom in all 50 states and arrest doctors for providing basic care. Make no mistake: if Republicans get the chance, they will work to pass laws even more
Attorney who represented Mississippi abortion clinic nominated for federal bench
A lawyer who represented a women’s health care clinic from Jackson, Mississippi, in the landmark overturn of the national abortion law could wind up sitting on a federal bench. President Joe Biden said Friday that Julie Rikelman of New York City has been nominated as a candidate for the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston. This court hears cases involving Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Puerto Rico. The move comes just over a month following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which since 1973 had prevented states from banning the practice of abortions. Rikelman served as an attorney for Jackson Women’s Health Organization in the Dobbs v. Jackson case, which led to Roe v. Wade being overturned. The veteran attorney is the United States litigation director for the Center for Reproductive rights. She has served in that position since 2011. Previously, Rikelman worked at NBC Universal, where she held multiple positions, including vice president of Litigation. Prior to working at NBC Universal, Rikelman worked at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett in New York as a senior associate from 2004-06, and worked in Anchorage, Alaska, from 2001-04 as an associate at Feldman & Orlansky. Rikelman is a 1997 graduate of Harvard Law School, graduating cum laude. She was born in Kiev, Ukraine, and emigrated in 1979 with her family to the United States. Republished with the permission of The Center Square.
