U.S. says China balloon could collect intelligence signals
The China balloon shot down by the U.S. was equipped to detect and collect intelligence signals as part of a huge, military-linked aerial surveillance program that targeted more than 40 countries, the Biden administration declared Thursday, citing imagery from American U-2 spy planes. A fleet of balloons operates under the direction of the People’s Liberation Army and is used specifically for spying, outfitted with high-tech equipment designed to gather sensitive information from targets across the globe, the U.S. said. Similar balloons have sailed over five continents, according to the administration. A statement from a senior State Department official offered the most detail to date linking China’s military to the balloon that was shot down by the U.S. last weekend over the Atlantic Ocean. The public details outlining the program’s scope and capabilities were meant to refute China’s persistent denials that the balloon was used for spying, including a claim Thursday that U.S. accusations about the balloon amount to “information warfare.” On Capitol Hill, the House voted unanimously to condemn China for a “brazen violation” of U.S. sovereignty and efforts to “deceive the international community through false claims about its intelligence collection campaigns.” Republicans have criticized President Joe Biden for not acting sooner to down the balloon, but both parties’ lawmakers came together on the vote, 419-0. In Beijing, before the U.S. offered its new information, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning repeated her nation’s insistence that the large unmanned balloon was a civilian meteorological airship that had blown off course and that the U.S. had “overreacted” by shooting it down. “It is irresponsible,” Mao said. The latest accusations, she said, “may be part of the U.S. side’s information warfare against China.” Underscoring the tensions, China’s defense minister refused to take a phone call from Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin to discuss the balloon issue on Saturday, the Pentagon said. Secretary of State Antony Blinken canceled a planned weekend trip to Beijing. The U.S. flatly contradicted China’s version of events, saying that imagery of the balloon collected by American U-2 spy planes as it crossed the country showed that it was “capable of conducting signals intelligence collection” with multiple antennas and other equipment designed to upload sensitive information and solar panels to power them. Jedidiah Royal, the U.S. assistant defense secretary for the Indo-Pacific, told a Senate Appropriations subcommittee that the military has “some very good guesses” about what intelligence China was seeking. More information was expected to be provided in a classified setting. Senior FBI officials who briefed reporters on the condition of anonymity under ground rules set by the bureau said just a few pieces of the balloon had arrived at the FBI’s Quantico, Virginia, lab for investigation. So far, investigators have parts of the balloon canopy, wiring, and what one official called “a very small amount of electronics.” The official said it was “very early for us to assess what the intent was and how the device was operating.” According to two U.S. officials, the balloon recovery efforts were temporarily suspended on Thursday due to high seas. They said some balloon debris was intact on the ocean floor, and divers had recovered potentially high-value equipment over the past day and a half. Another official said that some of the recovered equipment components had English writing or markings on them, but it wasn’t clear if they were American parts or from another English-speaking country. The official said the more highly technical parts recovered did not have any overt markings. Much of the debris is concentrated in two separate sections of an area 15 football fields long and 15 fields across, according to the officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the collection process. The State Department official, providing details to reporters by email, also on condition of anonymity, said an analysis of the balloon debris was “inconsistent” with China’s explanation that it was a weather balloon that went off course. The U.S. is reaching out to countries that have also been targeted, the official said, to discuss the scope of the Chinese surveillance program, and is looking into potential action that “supported the balloon’s incursion into U.S. airspace.” The official said the U.S. has confidence that the manufacturer of the balloon shot down on Saturday has “a direct relationship with China’s military and is an approved vendor of the” army. The official cited information from an official PLA procurement portal as evidence of the connection between the company and the military. State Department spokesman Ned Price would not identify the other countries the U.S. says have also been targeted. Nor would he reveal how the U.S. knows there have been Chinese incursions over those countries’ territory, saying to do so could compromise intelligence sources and methods. The release of new information appeared to be part of a coordinated administration response, with multiple officials appearing before congressional committees to face questions about the balloon. Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman said officials had taken “all necessary steps to protect sensitive information” and had been able to study and scrutinize the balloon and its equipment. “We will continue to answer the dangers posed by the PRC with determination and resolve,” Sherman said, referring to the People’s Republic of China. “We will make clear to the PRC that violations of our sovereignty and the sovereignty of other countries are unacceptable.” At a separate Senate subcommittee hearing, lawmakers repeatedly pressed administration officials, including Pentagon military leaders, about why the balloon was not shot down over sparsely populated areas of Alaska. And they questioned whether allowing the balloon to transit such a large area set a precedent for future spying efforts by China and others. “It defies belief that there was not a single opportunity to safely shoot this spy balloon prior to the coast of South Carolina,” said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine. “By the administration’s logic, we would allow the Chinese to fly surveillance balloons over the Pentagon or other sensitive sites and populated areas.”
Tommy Tuberville supports bill to permanently ban taxpayer funding for abortions
U.S. Senators Tommy Tuberville and Katie Britt joined 45 of their Senate colleagues in introducing the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act to establish a permanent prohibition on federal funding for abortion. Tuberville said in a statement, “Every life is sacred.” “Millions of hardworking Americans believe that life begins at conception and don’t want their taxpayer dollars inadvertently funding abortions,” said Sen. Tuberville stated. “As a Christian and as a conservative, I share their belief that every life is sacred and every American has a right to life. That’s why I’m proud to sign on to this legislation that will solidify abortion funding restrictions that have been in place for decades and better protect the unborn.” “Most Americans do not want their hard-earned tax dollars being used for abortion-on-demand, but our current patchwork of regulations has brought years of uncertainty,” Sen. Roger Wicker said. “The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act would simplify federal rules, ensuring that American tax dollars are never used for the destruction of innocent, unborn life.” The bill seeks to change 40 years of inconsistent policies that have regulated federal funding for abortion. It would make funding restrictions permanent for abortion and elective abortion coverage, including the Hyde Amendment, which requires annual approval. The legislation would also eliminate taxpayer-funded subsidies for elective abortion coverage currently offered on Affordable Care Act exchanges through refundable tax credits. Tuberville, Wicker, and Britt joined Sens. Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) John Barrasso (R-Wyoming), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee), John Boozman (R-Arkansas), Mike Braun (R-Indiana), Ted Budd (R-North Carolina), Shelley Moore Capito (R-West Virginia), Bill Cassidy (R-Louisiana), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas), Kevin Cramer (R-North Dakota), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Steve Daines (R-Montana), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Deb Fischer (R-Nebraska), Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Bill Hagerty (R-Tennessee), Josh Hawley (R-Missouri), John Hoeven (R-North Dakota), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Mississippi), Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin), John Kennedy (R-Louisiana), James Lankford (R-Oklahoma), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyoming), Roger Marshall (R-Kansas), Jerry Moran (R-Kansas), Markwayne Mullin (R-Oklahoma), Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), Pete Ricketts (R-Nebraska), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Mitt Romney (R-Utah), Mike Rounds (R-South Dakota), Marco Rubio (R-Florida), Eric Schmitt (R-Missouri), Rick Scott (R-Florida), Tim Scott (R-South Carolina), Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), Thom Tillis, (R-North Carolina), John Thune (R-South Dakota), J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), and Todd Young (R-Indiana). Swing Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins did not sign off on the legislation, and neither did any of the 52 Senate Democrats who hold the majority in the body. U.S. Representative Christopher Smith (R-New Jersey) has introduced similar legislation in the House of Representatives. To connect with the author of this story, or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Sen. Katie Britt votes against confirming Brendan Owens
On Monday, U.S. Senator Katie Britt today cast her first-ever vote in the Senate; when she voted against the confirmation of Brendan Owens to serve as Assistant Secretary for Energy, Installations, and Environment in the Department of Defense. Owens was originally nominated by President Joe Biden in March 2022 but failed to muster the support to get a floor vote during the 117th Congress. President Biden re-nominated Owens in January 2023 at the start of the 118th Congress. “The Biden Administration has consistently prioritized their reckless leftwing political agenda to the detriment of our military readiness,” said Sen. Britt. “This nominee would simply be the tip of the spear in continuing President Biden’s radical ‘Green New Deal’ priorities at the Department of Defense, which should be focused on ensuring our incredible men and women in uniform are the best equipped, resourced, and trained in the world. We achieve peace through strength, not wokeness. The last thing we need is a DOD appointee from the ESG movement.” The U.S. Senate confirmed Owens on Monday night with 60 “yea” and 35 “nay” votes. A number of Republicans voted to confirm Owens, including Sens. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Susan Collins of Maine, John Cornyn of Texas, Joni Ernst of Iowa, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Jerry Moran of Kansas, Mitt Romney of Utah, Mike Rounds of South Dakota, Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Roger Wicker of Mississippi, and Todd Young of Indiana. Britt was elected in a landslide by the voters of Alabama in November after besting four rivals in the Alabama Republican Primary last spring. Senate is the first elected office she has ever held. Britt and her husband, Wesley, live in Montgomery with their two children. To connect with the author of this story, or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Terri Sewell says Fiscal Year 2023 Omnibus Bill provides billions in federal funds for Alabama projects
On Wednesday, Congresswoman Terri Sewell (D-AL07) celebrated the inclusion of billions in federal funding for the state of Alabama in the Fiscal Year 2023 omnibus funding bill, which passed the House and Senate last week. Sewell holds a senior leadership role in the Democratic leadership team in the outgoing Democratic leadership in the House. U.S. Sen. Richard Shelby was the lead Republican negotiator on the Omnibus in the Senate. This bill was most likely his last vote in Congress after 44 years of service to the State of Alabama. “I was thrilled to vote in favor of the FY23 funding bill because I know that it will be a game changer for the people of Alabama,” Rep. Sewell said in a press release. “I would also like to thank Senator Richard Shelby for his work to ensure that Alabama received a historic amount of funding during his last year as a United States Senator. His leadership, his pragmatic approach to governing, and his fierce advocacy for the people of Alabama will be missed.” President Joe Biden announced that he would sign the bill after it passed both the Senate and the House of Representatives. “This bill is good for our economy, our competitiveness, and our communities – and I will sign it into law as soon as it reaches my desk,” Biden said in a statement. “This bill will advance cutting-edge research on cancer and other diseases through my ARPA-H initiative. It will put more cops on the beat, invest in community policing, and provide the highest funding level for the Violence Against Women Act in history. It will help us meet our sacred obligation to America’s veterans and deliver on the promise of the PACT Act, my bipartisan legislation to expand health care benefits to veterans. It will provide additional assistance to Ukraine, another demonstration of our bipartisan support for Ukraine after President [Volodymyr] Zelenskyy’s visit. It will help communities recovering from devastating natural disasters get back on their feet. And it’ll strengthen worker protections for pregnant women.” President Biden also thanked Shelby for his leadership in the passage of the bipartisan Year-End Omnibus. “I want to thank Senator Leahy, Senator Shelby, and Chairwoman DeLauro for their tireless work to get this done. Neither side got everything it wanted in this agreement – that’s what happens in a negotiation. And bipartisan members of Congress passed the Electoral Count Act and took long overdue steps to protect the integrity of our elections. This is critical bipartisan action that will help ensure that the will of the people is preserved. I want to thank Senators [Susan] Collins and [Joe] Manchin, as well as Senators [Amy] Klobuchar and [Roy]Blunt, for finding compromise to strengthen our democracy in the face of election denialism and assaults on our bedrock constitutional values.” “This bill is further proof that Republicans and Democrats can come together to deliver for the American people, and I’m looking forward to continued bipartisan progress in the year ahead,” Biden concluded. Shelby has retired from public service, so there will be a new Vice Chair of the Senate appropriations committee in January. Democrats no longer control the House of Representatives. There is a strong likelihood that when House Republicans finally figure out their leadership conundrum that Congressman Robert Aderholt will be the new Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. Sewell shared the list of funding items for Alabama in the FY23 Omnibus funding bill. The list includes: $76 million for the University of Alabama Birmingham (UAB) Heersink School of Medicine to build a new biomedical research building. $55 million for the Secret Service’s National Computer Forensics Institute (NCFI), located in Hoover, to expand training opportunities for state and local law enforcement and legal and judicial professionals in computer forensics and cyber investigations. $5 million for the Secret Service’s Cyber Fraud Task Forces to increase mission effectiveness and provide modern investigative capabilities to combat transnational crimes. $23 million to repurpose and renovate NCFI facilities to accommodate for the ongoing growth of the program. $30 million in funding for Alabama’s Northern Beltline of the Appalachian Development Highway System. $47.5 billion for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), an increase of nearly $2.5 billion above FY22 funding level. $7.32 billion for the National Cancer Institute (NCI), an increase of $407.6 million from FY22. $923 million for the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS). $629 million for Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs), which continues funding for a CTSA award at UAB. $25 million in grant funding for the Regional Pediatric Pandemic Network, a network of ten Children’s hospitals, including Children’s of Alabama. $52 million in targeted funds for Regional Biocontainment Laboratories (RBLs) to test FDA-approved drugs at research institutions across the country, including UAB. $280.295 million for the NIH, Helping to End Addiction Long-term (HEAL) Initiative, to address addiction and develop alternative opioids for safe and effective pain management. $520.163 million for the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research and continued support of the National Dental Practice-Based Research Network, founded and hosted at UAB. $47 million for Area Health Education Centers (AHECs), which supports the Alabama Statewide AHEC Program that is hosted within the UAB Department of Family and Community Medicine. $119 million for the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR), which supports the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Recreational Technologies (RERC Rec-Tech) in Birmingham. $8 million in Emerging Infectious Diseases for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to utilize its clinical trial partners and the Mycoses Study Group, which is affiliated with UAB. Funding consistent with a cooperative agreement to support the Department of Energy’s National Carbon Capture Center in Wilsonville, Alabama. $4.5 million, $1.5 million above the FY22 enacted level, for the NIST Cybersecurity of Genomic Data program, which supports ongoing research in cybersecurity for genomic and biomedical-based systems at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. $15 million military construction project building a Commercial Vehicle Inspection Gate at Maxwell Air Force Base. $6+ million military construction project building an F-35 Weapons Load Crew
Bill protecting same-sex, interracial unions clears Congress
The House gave final approval Thursday to legislation protecting same-sex marriages, a monumental step in a decadeslong battle for nationwide recognition that reflects a stark turnaround in societal attitudes. President Joe Biden has said he will promptly sign the measure, which requires all states to recognize same-sex marriages. It is a relief for hundreds of thousands of couples who have married since the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision that legalized those marriages and have worried about what would happen if the ruling were overturned. In a statement after the vote, Biden called the legislation a “critical step to ensure that Americans have the right to marry the person they love.” He said the legislation provides “hope and dignity to millions of young people across this country who can grow up knowing that their government will recognize and respect the families they build.” The bipartisan legislation, which passed 258-169 with 39 Republican votes, would also protect interracial unions by requiring states to recognize legal marriages regardless of “sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin.” After months of negotiations, the Senate passed the bill last week with 12 Republican votes. Democrats moved the bill quickly through the House and Senate after the Supreme Court’s decision in June that overturned the federal right to an abortion — including a concurring opinion from Justice Clarence Thomas that suggested the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision legalizing same-sex marriage could also be reconsidered. While many Republicans predicted that was unlikely to happen, and said the bill was unnecessary, Democrats and GOP supporters of the bill said it shouldn’t be left to chance. “We need it,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who presided over the vote as one of her last acts in leadership before stepping aside in January. “It is magic.” The bill is “a glorious triumph of love and freedom,” Pelosi said, tearing up as she celebrated its passage. In debate before the vote, several gay members of Congress talked about what a federal law would mean for them and their families. Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wis., said he and his husband should be able to visit each other in the hospital just like any other married couple and receive spousal benefits “regardless of if your spouse’s name is Samuel or Samantha.” Rep. Chris Pappas, D-N.H., said he was set to marry “the love of my life” next year, and it is “unthinkable” that his marriage might not be recognized in some states if Obergefell were to be overturned. “The idea of marriage equality used to be a far-fetched idea,” said Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I. “Now it’s the law of the land and supported by the vast majority of Americans.” The legislation lost some Republican support since July, when 47 Republicans voted for it — a robust and unexpected show of support that kick-started serious negotiations in the Senate. But most of those lawmakers held firm, with a cross-section of the party, from conservatives to moderates, voting for the bill. House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy voted against it. “To me, this is really just standing with the Constitution,” said Republican Rep. Ann Wagner of Missouri, who voted for the bill both times. She pushed back on GOP arguments that it would affect the religious rights of those who don’t believe in same-sex marriage. “No one’s religious liberties are affected in any way, shape, or form,” Wagner said. Republican Rep. Chris Stewart of Utah said he was “proud to once again vote in favor of protecting our LGBTQ and religious friends and neighbors.” He praised Senate changes to the bill, ensuring that it would not affect current rights of religious institutions and groups. “Civil rights are not a finite resource, we do not have to take from one group to give to another,” Stewart said. The legislation would not require states to allow same-sex couples to marry, as Obergefell now does. But it would require states to recognize all marriages that were legal where they were performed and protect current same-sex unions if the Supreme Court decision were overturned. While it’s not everything advocates may have wanted, passage of the legislation represents a watershed moment. Just a decade ago, many Republicans openly campaigned on blocking same-sex marriages; today, more than two-thirds of the public support them. Still, most Republicans opposed the legislation, and some conservative advocacy groups lobbied aggressively against it in recent weeks, arguing that it doesn’t do enough to protect those who want to refuse services for same-sex couples. “God’s perfect design is indeed marriage between one man and one woman for life,” said Rep. Bob Good, R-Va, before the vote. “And it doesn’t matter what you think or what I think; that’s what the Bible says.” Rep. Vicky Hartzler, R-Mo., choked up as she begged colleagues to vote against the bill, which she said undermines “natural marriage” between a man and a woman. “I’ll tell you my priorities,” Hartzler said. “Protect religious liberty, protect people of faith and protect Americans who believe in the true meaning of marriage.” Democrats in the Senate, led by Wisconsin’s Tammy Baldwin and Arizona’s Kyrsten Sinema, worked with supportive Republican senators to address those GOP concerns by negotiating changes to clarify that the legislation does not impair the rights of private individuals or businesses. The amended bill would also make clear that a marriage is between two people, an effort to ward off some far-right criticism that the legislation could endorse polygamy. In the end, several religious groups, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, came out in support of the bill. The Mormon church said it would support rights for same-sex couples as long as they didn’t infringe upon religious groups’ right to believe as they choose. Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who led negotiations with Baldwin and Sinema in the Senate, attended a ceremony after the House vote with Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. “When I think about this bill, I think about how much it matters to people in each of our lives, our family members, our coworkers, our
U.S. Senate to vote on Respect for Marriage Act; several groups say it’s unconstitutional
Several groups argue the Respect for Marriage Act (ROMA) currently before the U.S. Senate is unconstitutional and, if enacted, will eventually be struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court. The bill, HR 8404, was introduced in the House by U.S. Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-NY, on July 18 and passed by a vote of 267-157 the next day. The U.S. Senate took it up on Nov. 14. It would provide “statutory authority for same-sex and interracial marriages” and repeal several provisions of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The 1996 law received bipartisan support, including from then U.S. Sen. Joe Biden and U.S. Rep. Chuck Schumer, D-NY, and from Democratic President Bill Clinton, who signed it. When a constitutional amendment was proposed to ban same-sex marriage in 2006, Sen. Biden told Meet the Press’s Tim Russert, “I can’t believe the American people can’t see through this. We already have a law, the Defense of Marriage Act … where I voted and others … that marriage is between a man and a woman, and states must respect that. … Why do we need a constitutional amendment? Marriage is between a man and a woman.” Sixteen years later, President Biden now supports replacing DOMA provisions, which “define, for purposes of federal law, marriage as between a man and a woman and spouse as a person of the opposite sex,” with ROMA provisions “that recognize any marriage that is valid under state law,” according to the bill summary. The summary also notes that the Supreme Court ruled three marriage-related laws as unconstitutional: DOMA (U.S. v. Windsor, 2013) and state laws banning same-sex marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015), and interracial marriage (Loving v. Virginia 1967). The bill would also allow “the Department of Justice to bring a civil action and establishes a private right of action for violations,” its summary states. When filing a cloture motion on a substitute amendment on Nov. 17, now Senate Majority Leader Schumer said the Senate would vote on ROMA when it returned on Monday after Thanksgiving. He said, “Let me be clear,” passing it “is not a matter of if but only when.” He also thanked his colleagues from both sides of the aisle “who led this bill.” Twelve Republicans voted with Democrats to allow it to move forward, eliminating a filibuster threat: Sens. Roy Blunt, Richard Burr, Shelley Capito, Susan Collins, Cynthia Lummis, Rob Portman, Mitt Romney, Dan Sullivan, Thom Tillis, Joni Ernst, Lisa Murkowski, and Todd Young. After their vote, Biden said, “Love is love, and Americans should have the right to marry the person they love,” adding their vote made “the United States one step closer to protecting that right in law.” Schumer also said he had “zero doubt” the bill “will soon be law of the land.” But multiple groups disagree, arguing it’s unconstitutional for the same reasons the Supreme Court struck down DOMA. Because the court already ruled Congress doesn’t have the constitutional authority to define marriage under Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution, and because ROMA is nearly identical to DOMA, they argue it will also likely be struck down. In a letter to Congress, the nonprofit religious freedom organization Liberty Counsel argues the court ruled in Windsor, “DOMA, because of its reach and extent, departs from this history and tradition of reliance on state law to define marriage.” It also ruled, “[b]y history and tradition the definition and regulation of marriage . . . has been treated as being within the authority and realm of the separate States.” Liberty Counsel Founder and Chairman Mat Staver, said, “The Constitution cannot be said to prohibit the exercise of power to define marriage in one manner yet authorize the opposite definition of that same unconstitutional exercise of power. If Windsor noted that Congress lacked authority in this realm, then it necessarily lacks the power here.” While a bipartisan amendment was introduced claiming to protect religious liberty, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, argues it really doesn’t. “Religious Americans will be subject to potentially ruinous litigation, while the tax-exempt status of certain charitable organizations, educational institutions, and non-profits will be threatened. My amendment would have shored up these vulnerabilities,” he said. Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts said, “Conservatives are deeply disappointed by the betrayal of Senate Republicans to protect Americans’ religious freedom and won’t soon forget the votes of the 12 Republican senators who cast aside an essential right in a bill that will weaponize the federal government against believers of nearly every major religion.” Gregory Baylor, senior counsel with Alliance for Defending Freedom, also said the law is “unnecessary and could have a disastrous effect on religious freedom. While proponents of the bill claim that it simply codifies the 2015 Obergefell decision, in reality, it is an intentional attack on the religious freedom of millions of Americans with sincerely held beliefs about marriage.” It also “threatens religious freedom and the institution of marriage” by codifying a “false definition of marriage in the American legal fabric,” ADF argues. It also “opens the door to federal recognition of polygamous relationships, jeopardizes the tax-exempt status of nonprofits that exercise their belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and endangers faith-based social-service organizations by threatening litigation and liability risk if they follow their views on marriage when working with the government.” Republished with the permission of The Center Square.
GOP’s lackluster fundraising spurs post-election infighting
Trailing badly in his Arizona Senate race as votes poured in, Republican Blake Masters went on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News program and assigned blame to one person: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. “You know what else is incompetent, Tucker? The establishment. The people who control the purse strings,” Masters said before accusing the long-serving GOP leader and the super PAC aligned with him of not spending enough on TV advertising. “Had he chosen to spend money in Arizona, this race would be over. We’d be celebrating a Senate majority right now.” Masters not only lost his race against Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly, but he also trailed every other Republican running for statewide office in Arizona. There’s another problem Masters didn’t acknowledge: He failed to raise significant money on his own. He was hardly alone. As both parties sift through the results of Democrats’ stronger-than-expected showing in the midterm elections, Republicans are engaged in a round of finger-pointing, including a failed attempt by Florida Sen. Rick Scott, who led the Senate GOP’s campaign arm, to challenge McConnell for his leadership post. But the recriminations obscure a much deeper dilemma for the party. Many of their nominees — a significant number of whom were first-time candidates who adopted far-right positions — failed to raise the money needed to mount competitive campaigns. That forced party leaders, particularly in the Senate, to make hard choices and triage resources to races where they thought they had the best chance at winning, often paying exorbitant rates to TV stations that, by law, would have been required to sell the same advertising time to candidates for far less. The lackluster fundraising allowed Democrats to get their message out to voters early and unchallenged, while GOP contenders lacked the resources to do the same. “This has become an existential and systemic problem for our party, and it’s something that needs to get addressed if we hope to be competitive,” said Steven Law, a former McConnell chief of staff who now leads Senate Leadership Fund, a super PAC that spent at least $232 million on advertising to elect Republicans to the Senate this year. “Our (donors) have grown increasingly alarmed that they are being put in the position of subsidizing weak fundraising performances by candidates in critical races. And something has got to give. It’s just not sustainable,” Law said. In key Senate and House battlegrounds, Democratic candidates outraised their Republican counterparts by a factor of nearly 2-to-1, according to an Associated Press analysis of campaign finance data. Consider the handful of races that helped Democrats retain their Senate majority. In Arizona, Masters was outraised nearly 8-to-1 by Kelly, who poured at least $32 million into TV advertising from August until Election Day, records show. Masters spent a little over $3 million on advertising during the same period after Senate Leadership Fund pulled out of the race. Meanwhile, in Nevada, Democratic Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto raised $52.8 million compared to Republican Adam Laxalt’s $15.5 million. And in Pennsylvania, Democratic Sen.-elect John Fetterman took in $16 million more than his GOP opponent, Dr. Mehmet Oz. That’s despite the celebrity TV doctor lending $22 million to his campaign, records show. Similar disparities emerged in crucial House races, including in Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, helping limit House Republicans to a surprisingly narrow majority. When it came to purchasing TV ad time, Democrats’ fundraising advantage yielded considerable upside. Ad sellers are required by law to offer candidates the cheapest rate. That same advantage doesn’t apply to super PACs, which Republican candidates relied on to close their fundraising gap — often at a premium. In Las Vegas, for example, a candidate could buy a unit of TV advertising for $598, according to advertising figures provided to the AP. That same segment cost a super PAC $4,500. In North Carolina’s Raleigh-Durham media market, a $342 spot cost a super PAC $1,270. And a $580 candidate segment in the Philadelphia area cost a super PAC nearly $2,000, the advertising figures show. Republicans also found themselves playing defense in states that weren’t ultimately competitive. JD Vance, who won his Ohio Senate race by more than 6 percentage points, was outraised nearly 4-to-1 by Democratic Rep. Tim Ryan. To shore him up, Senate Leadership Fund poured $28 million into the state. The group’s advertising ultimately accounted for about 70% of all Republican media spending from August until Election Day. A similar situation played out in North Carolina, where the McConnell-aligned super PAC was responsible for 82% of the Republican advertising spending during the same period. GOP Rep. Ted Budd won his Senate race by over 3% of the vote. But money woes weren’t the only complicating factor. Donald Trump elevated a series of untested, first-time candidates. They included Masters, Vance, and former NFL star Herschel Walker, whose complicated backstory includes threats of violence against his ex-wife, false claims of business success, and allegations that he pressured two girlfriends to get abortions, which Walker denies. Then there was Oz, who moved to Pennsylvania to seek the seat and also secured Trump’s endorsement but was pilloried by Democrats as an out-of-touch carpetbagger. The former president gave them his endorsement, but he was parsimonious when it came to sharing some of the more than $100 million he’s amassed in a committee designed to help other candidates. He ended up spending about $15 million on ads across five Senate races, records show. Meanwhile, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, led by Scott, often worked at cross-purposes with McConnell’s political operation. Early on, Scott ruled out getting involved in primaries, which he saw as inappropriate meddling. McConnell’s allies, meanwhile, moved to fend off candidates they saw as poor general-election contenders, like Don Bolduc, a far-right conservative who lost his New Hampshire Senate race by nearly 10 percentage points. McConnell forces also defended Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a GOP moderate, against a conservative challenger. “Senate races are just different,” McConnell said in August. “Candidate quality has a lot to do with the outcome.” In response, Scott took a shot at McConnell without mentioning him by name, suggesting in an opinion article published in the Washington Examiner that any “trash-talking”
Joe Guzzardi: Pro-Environment platform a mid-term winner
The latest mid-term election polling shows that Republicans and Democrats are dead even. In January, the same polling firm Statista had the GOP ahead by four points. Other polls like 538.com indicate more or less the same outcome. But if voters have learned anything since the 2016 and 2020 elections, it would be to distrust polling firm projections. Results from 2020 polls favored Democrats, with Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), and Steve Daines (R-Mont.) as likely losers. But Collins, 6.5 points behind, or so said the pre-election pollsters, won by 8.6 points. The other five candidates that the prognosticators wrote off as doomed won handily. Pollsters have an explanation to defend their theory that congressional Democrats might still retain the majority, despite record inflation, rising crime rates, a botched Afghanistan withdrawal, student debt forgiveness, billions of dollars squandered in support of what’s become an endless Russia-Ukraine war, and an open border. It is that the GOP has nominated poor candidates in key swing states. Among the races, pollsters are tracking most closely are Blake Masters in Arizona vs. incumbent Mark Kelly, Herschel Walker in Georgia vs. incumbent Raphael Warnock, Adam Laxalt in Nevada vs. incumbent Catherine Cortez Masto, and Mehmet Oz vs. John Fetterman in Pennsylvania, where incumbent Republican Pat Toomey is retiring. A state official who has no congressional voting record, Fetterman proudly notes that his wife’s family overstayed their visas, at which time their immigration status converted to unlawfully present, a clue that he favors more immigration. Fetterman’s website says he supports a “humane” immigration system, a vapid remark which confirms that he endorses Biden’s status quo. The GOP challengers, all within striking distance, may be getting short shrift from pollsters. The candidates were persuasive enough to capture primary nominations; they’re not too tongue-tied to debate. More important, going into the general election, the GOP has as much fodder – listed above – and primo debate material as any high-office challengers in history, thanks mostly to President Biden’s slipshod governance, and the incumbents’ whole-hearted endorsement of it. On the key open borders issue, Masters, Walker, and Laxalt have the benefit of launching an offensive against their opponents’ immigration voting records. Their rivals, Kelly, Warnock, and Cortez Masto are, like Fetterman and Biden, all-in on open borders. A review of the incumbents’ immigration votes found that each has consistently voted against reducing amnesty fraud, against curbing illegal immigrants’ rewards, against ending unnecessary employment visas, against stricter border enforcement, and against more rigorous interior enforcement. Stumping on reducing immigration can be problematic since such a focused campaign would trigger untruthful but potentially damaging racist allegations. A winning campaign would include linking immigration to unsustainable population growth, an indisputable fact that the Census Bureau confirms. Census Bureau data predicts that by the mid-21st century, the U.S. population will increase to more than 400 million from its current 333 million, a greater than 20 percent increase. More than half of that growth will be attributable to immigration and births to immigrants. For comparison’s sake, the Center for Immigration Studies’ researchers, based entirely on the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey and the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplements, found that in 2017 there were 35.8 million legal and illegal immigrants living in the U.S. who arrived from 1982 to 2017. Further, these immigrants had 16.9 million U.S.-born children and grandchildren. In total, immigration added 52.7 million people to the U.S. population between 1982 and 2017, accounting for a little over 56 percent of population growth during this 35-year time period. For the nation’s population to increase by more than 65 million people, as the Census Bureau predicts, in less than 30 years, creates a grave danger that will exacerbate existing environmental problems like water shortages and land lost to urban sprawl. Opinions about immigration and its effects often differ. But sentiments about the environmental future Americans want to ensure for their children and grandchildren are consistent. Americans want open spaces and nature’s bounty to remain for future generations to enjoy, a goal that ever-more immigration makes impossible. To win and to prove the pollsters wrong again, the GOP platform must emphasize immigration’s harmful, unwanted consequences of unchecked population growth and the environmental degradation that accompanies it. Joe Guzzardi is a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist who writes about immigration and related social issues. Joe joined Progressives for Immigration Reform in 2018 as an analyst after a ten-year career directing media relations for Californians for Population Stabilization, where he also was a Senior Writing Fellow. A native Californian, Joe now lives in Pennsylvania. Contact him at jguzzardi@pfirdc.org.
Tommy Tuberville and colleagues introduce legislation to simplify federal grant process
On Thursday, U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville and eight other Republican Senators introduced new legislation to ease the burdensome federal grant application process. Sen. Tuberville and his colleagues introduced the Simplifying Grants Act (S. 4799) to help local governments more easily navigate the federal grant process. “Congress should look for ways to cut red tape and make the government more efficient for the American people,” Tuberville said in a statement. “The Simplifying Grants Act will do just that, giving valuable time and resources back to public servants in smaller towns across the country. In a state like Alabama, where nearly 60 percent of counties would benefit from the changes in this bill, that time will be well spent on projects in those communities. I’m proud to join my colleagues in this effort to make it easier for small towns to access the tools they deserve.” Tuberville was joined by Sens Marco Rubio (R-Florida), Shelley Moore Capito (R-West Virginia), Susan Collins (R-Maine), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), James Risch (R-Idaho), Rick Scott (R-Florida), and Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi) in sponsoring the legislation. Sen. Rubio was the sponsor of the legislation. “Local governments use federal dollars to invest in infrastructure, public safety, law enforcement, and our children’s education, among other important priorities,” Rubio said. “Regretfully, our current grant process leaves small local governments and their residents behind. This bill would provide a simplified process, so small local governments are able to apply for and receive the funds they need.” The Simplifying Grants Act seeks to make it easier for smaller local governments to apply for federal grants by directing the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and executive agencies to both simplify grant applications for local governments located in nonurbanized areas (populations of less than 50,000) and make checklists available that list each requirement of each step of the grant process for grants for which such local governments are eligible. The legislation would also fulfill certain reporting requirements. Smaller cities, counties, and local governments often face difficulties in applying for and receiving federal grant dollars because they don’t know they qualify for a program in order to know that they can apply or don’t know how to apply, so often have to seek outside assistance from grant writers. “While larger communities can navigate a complex federal grants process, Idaho’s small, rural communities are often overlooked and left behind, said Sen. Risch. “It is only fair that taxpayer dollars reach even the smallest corners of our state. Simplifying grants for our local governments will level the playing field and ensure that federal taxpayer dollars come back to their own communities.” In the 1980s, the U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) found evidence showing that “federal aid programs have never consistently transferred income to the poorest jurisdictions or individuals” and that “unlike… other major federal systems, the United States lacks a systematic method for equalizing the fiscal resources of its states.” Since the ACIR’s landmark report, the total number of federal grants to state and local governments has grown by more than 135 percent, and the total amount of federal grant-in-aid to state and local governments increased by approximately 690 percent since ACIR’s finding. The unequal distribution of federal dollars can be explained by numerous factors, including the complexity of the application process. It is easier for larger local governments to hire dedicated grant writers and coordinators, so they can submit better applications and be more equipped to effectively utilize federally awarded funds. This gives larger local governments an advantage over less populated counties that typically have fewer staff and smaller budgets. With the Senate evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats and Democrats controlling the U.S. House of Representatives and the presidency, Rubio and Tuberville will need support from Democratic Senators to pass S. 4799. Tommy Tuberville is in his first term representing Alabama in the U.S. Senate. Tuberville unseated incumbent Sen. Doug Jones in the 2020 election. Prior to his Senate service, Tuberville was a career college football coach, including Auburn University. To connect with the author of this story, or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
House OKs bill to protect contraception from Supreme Court
The right to use contraceptives would be inscribed into law under a measure that Democrats pushed through the House on Thursday, their latest campaign-season response to concerns a conservative Supreme Court that already erased federal abortion rights could go further. The House’s 228-195 roll call was largely along party lines and sent the measure to the Senate, where its fate seemed uphill. The bill is the latest example of Democrats latching onto their own version of culture war battles to appeal to female, progressive, and minority voters by casting the court and Republicans as extremists intent on obliterating rights taken for granted for years. Democrats said that with the high court recently overturning the landmark Roe v. Wade decision from 1973, the justices and GOP lawmakers are on track to go even further than banning abortions. “This extremism is about one thing: control of women. We will not let this happen,” said Rep. Kathy Manning, D-N.C., who sponsored the legislation. All of the bill’s nearly 150 co-sponsors are Democrats. In his opinion overturning Roe last month, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the court should now review other precedents. He mentioned rulings that affirmed the rights of same-sex marriage in 2015, same-sex intimate relationships in 2003, and married couples’ use of contraceptives in 1965. Thomas did not specify a 1972 decision that legalized the use of contraceptives by unmarried people as well, but Democrats say they consider that at risk as well. Republicans accused Democrats of manufacturing a crisis, saying there is no serious effort underway to erase the right to use contraceptives. “If we allow the majority to undermine constitutional safeguards for an imagined and fake emergency, they will create more imagined emergencies in the future to violate and undermine our constitutional principles,” Rep. Claudia Tenney, R-NY., said during the debate. She said Democrats wanted to “distract and scare the American people and score cheap political points.” The measure’s fate seemed unclear in the 50-50 Senate, where at least 10 Republicans would have to support the bill for it to reach the 60 votes needed for most legislation to pass. House Democrats have begun forcing votes on these and other issues related to privacy rights, hoping for long-shot victories or to at least energize sympathetic voters and donors and force Republicans from competitive districts in difficult spots. The House voted last week to revive a nationwide right to abortion, with every Republican voting no, and voted largely along party lines to bar prosecuting women traveling to states where abortion remains legal. The House voted Tuesday to keep same-sex marriage legal, with 47 Republicans joining all Democrats in backing the measure. Though 157 Republicans voted no, that tally raised expectations that the bill could win enough support for GOP senators to pass, sending it to President Joe Biden for his signature. The contraception bill explicitly allows the use of contraceptives and gives the medical community the right to provide them, covering “any device or medication used to prevent pregnancy.” Listed examples include oral contraceptives, injections, implants like intrauterine devices, and emergency contraceptives, which prevent pregnancy several days after unprotected sex. The bill lets the federal and state government, patients, and health care providers bring civil suits against states or state officials that violate its provisions. Same-sex marriage may have such broad public acceptance that growing numbers of Republicans are willing to vote for it. But anti-abortion groups oppose the contraception legislation, and it remains to be seen if significant numbers of GOP lawmakers are willing to make that break. Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America said the legislation “seeks to bail out the abortion industry, trample conscience rights, and require uninhibited access to dangerous chemical abortion drugs.” The National Right to Life Committee said it “goes far beyond the scope of contraception” and would cover abortion pills like RU486, which supporters said was incorrect. The measure drew a mixed reaction from two of the Senate’s more moderate Republicans. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said she was “most likely” to support the measure. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, demurred, saying she was working on bipartisan legislation that she said would codify the rights to abortion and perhaps for contraception. There are few state restrictions on contraceptive use, said Elizabeth Nash, who studies state reproductive health policies for the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization that supports abortion rights. Nash said she was concerned that there will be efforts to curb emergency contraceptives and intrauterine devices and to help providers and institutions refuse to provide contraceptive services. Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
Senators propose changes to electors law after Capitol riot
A bipartisan group of senators agreed Wednesday on proposed changes to the Electoral Count Act, the post-Civil War-era law for certifying presidential elections that came under intense scrutiny after the January 6 attack on the Capitol and Donald Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election. Long in the making, the package introduced by the group led by Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Joe Manchin of West Virginia is made up of two separate proposals. One would clarify the way states submit electors and the vice president tallies the votes in Congress. The other would bolster security for state and local election officials who have faced violence and harassment. “From the beginning, our bipartisan group has shared a vision of drafting legislation to fix the flaws of the archaic and ambiguous Electoral Count Act of 1887,” Collins, Manchin, and the other 14 senators said in a joint statement. “We have developed legislation that establishes clear guidelines for our system of certifying and counting electoral votes,” the group wrote. “We urge our colleagues in both parties to support these simple, commonsense reforms.” Both Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell have signaled support for the bipartisan group, but the final legislative package will undergo careful scrutiny. Votes are not likely before fall. But with broad support from the group of 16 senators, seven Democrats and nine Republicans, who have worked behind closed doors for months with the help of outside experts, serious consideration is assured. In a statement, Matthew Weil, executive director of the Democracy Program at the Bipartisan Policy Center, called the framework a “critical step” in shoring up ambiguities in the Electoral Count Act. After Trump lost the 2020 election, the defeated president orchestrated an unprecedented attempt to challenge the electors sent from battleground states to the joint session of Congress on January 6, when the vice president presides over certification. Under the proposed changes, the law would be updated to ensure the governor from each state is initially responsible for submitting electors, as a way to safeguard against states sending alternative or fake elector slates. Additionally, the law would spell out that the vice president presides over the joint session in a “solely ministerial” capacity, according to a summary page. It says the vice president “does not have any power to solely determine, accept, reject, or otherwise adjudicate disputes over electors.” That provision is a direct reaction to Trump’s relentless efforts to pressure then Vice President Mike Pence to reject the electors being sent from certain battleground states as a way to halt the certification or tip it away from Joe Biden’s victory. The bill also specifies the procedures around presidential transitions, including when the election outcome is disputed, to ensure the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next. That’s another pushback to the way Trump blocked Biden’s team from accessing some information for his transition to the White House. The second proposal, revolving around election security, would double the federal penalties to up to two years in prison for individuals who “threaten or intimidate election officials, poll watchers, voters or candidates,” according to the summary. It also would seek to improve the way the U.S. Postal Service handles election mail and “provide guidance to states to improve their mail-in ballot processes.” Mail-in ballots and the role of the Postal Service came under great scrutiny during the 2020 election. An Associated Press review of potential cases of voter fraud in six battleground states found no evidence of widespread fraud that could change the outcome of the election. A separate AP review of drop boxes used for mailed ballots also found no significant problems. The need for election worker protections was front and center at a separate hearing Wednesday of the House Committee on Homeland Security. Election officials and experts testified that a rise in threats of physical violence is contributing to staffing shortages across the country and a loss of experience at local boards of elections. “The impact is widespread,” said Neal Kelley, a former registrar of voters in Orange County, California, who now chairs the Committee for Safe and Secure Elections. “And, while the effects on individuals are devastating, the potential blow to democracy should not be dismissed.” Elizabeth Howard, senior counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice, told the committee that Congress needs to direct more money and support toward protecting election workers’ personal safety, including by funding local and federal training programs and providing grants to enhance security at election directors’ personal residences. Democratic New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver, who recently reported a series of threats, told the panel the situation has become worse after former President Donald Trump’s attacks against the 2020 election result. “Unfortunately, we are still on a daily basis, in my state and across the country, living with the reverberating effects of the ‘Big Lie’ from 2020,” she said. “And, as we all know, when it comes to leadership, what you say from the very highest echelons of government power in this country do have those reverberating effects.” Some Republican members of the committee condemned violence against election workers — and also drew a parallel to recent threats and intimidation directed toward some Supreme Court justices after their decision to overturn constitutional protections for abortion. GOP Rep. Clay Higgins of Louisiana rejected the notion that Trump and other election skeptics were solely responsible for the “atmosphere of mistrust” that grew up around the 2020 election. Republished with the permission of The Associated Press.
Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade; states can ban abortion
The Supreme Court has ended constitutional protections for abortion that had been in place nearly 50 years in a decision by its conservative majority to overturn Roe v. Wade. Friday’s outcome is expected to lead to abortion bans in roughly half the states. The decision, unthinkable just a few years ago, was the culmination of decades of efforts by abortion opponents, made possible by an emboldened right side of the court that has been fortified by three appointees of former President Donald Trump. The ruling came more than a month after the stunning leak of a draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, indicating the court was prepared to take this momentous step. It puts the court at odds with a majority of Americans who favored preserving Roe, according to opinion polls. Alito, in the final opinion issued Friday, wrote that Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 decision that reaffirmed the right to abortion, were wrong the day they were decided and must be overturned. “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision,” Alito wrote. Authority to regulate abortion rests with the political branches, not the courts, Alito wrote. Joining Alito were Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. The latter three justices are Donald Trump appointees. Thomas first voted to overrule Roe 30 years ago. Chief Justice John Roberts would have stopped short of ending the abortion right, noting that he would have upheld the Mississippi law at the heart of the case, a ban on abortion after 15 weeks, and said no more. Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan — the diminished liberal wing of the court — were in dissent. “With sorrow—for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection—we dissent,” they wrote. The ruling is expected to disproportionately affect minority women who already face limited access to health care, according to statistics analyzed by The Associated Press. Thirteen states, mainly in the South and Midwest, already have laws on the books that ban abortion in the event Roe is overturned. Another half-dozen states have near-total bans or prohibitions after 6 weeks of pregnancy, before many women know they are pregnant. In roughly a half-dozen other states, the fight will be over dormant abortion bans that were enacted before Roe was decided in 1973 or new proposals to sharply limit when abortions can be performed, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights. More than 90% of abortions take place in the first 13 weeks of pregnancy, and more than half are now done with pills, not surgery, according to data compiled by Guttmacher. The decision came against a backdrop of public opinion surveys that find a majority of Americans oppose overturning Roe and handing the question of whether to permit abortion entirely to the states. Polls conducted by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and others also have consistently shown about 1 in 10 Americans want abortion to be illegal in all cases. A majority are in favor of abortion being legal in all or most circumstances, but polls indicate many also support restrictions, especially later in pregnancy. The Biden administration and other defenders of abortion rights have warned that a decision overturning Roe also would threaten other high court decisions in favor of gay rights and, even potentially, contraception. But Alito wrote in his draft opinion that his analysis addresses abortion only, not other rights that also stem from a right to privacy that the high court has found implicit, though not directly stated, in the Constitution. Abortion is different, Alito wrote, because of the unique moral question it poses. Whatever the intentions of the person who leaked Alito’s draft opinion, the conservatives held firm in overturning Roe and Casey. In his draft, Alito dismissed the arguments in favor of retaining the two decisions, including that multiple generations of American women have partly relied on the right to abortion to gain economic and political power. Changing the composition of the court has been central to the anti-abortion side’s strategy. Mississippi and its allies made increasingly aggressive arguments as the case developed, and two high-court defenders of abortion rights retired or died. The state initially argued that its law could be upheld without overruling the court’s abortion precedents. Then-Gov. Phil Bryant signed the 15-week measure into law in March 2018, when Justices Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were still members of a five-justice majority that was mainly protective of abortion rights. By early summer, Kennedy had retired and was replaced by Justice Brett Kavanaugh a few months later. The Mississippi law was blocked in lower federal courts. But the state always was headed to the nation’s highest court. It did not even ask for a hearing before a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ultimately held the law invalid in December 2019. By early September 2020, the Supreme Court was ready to consider the state’s appeal. The court scheduled the case for consideration at the justices’ private conference on Sept. 29. But in the intervening weeks, Ginsburg died, and Barrett was quickly nominated and confirmed without a single Democratic vote. The stage now was set, although it took the court another half year to agree to hear the case. By the time Mississippi filed its main written argument with the court in the summer, the thrust of its argument had changed, and it was now calling for the wholesale overruling of Roe and Casey. The first sign that the court might be receptive to wiping away the constitutional right to abortion came in late summer when the justices divided 5-4 in allowing Texas to enforce a ban on the procedure at roughly six weeks, before some women even know they are pregnant. That dispute turned on the unique structure of the
