The world is exhausting right now and I’ve reached my bandwidth for the day. So here’s a little something less important that might bring a little happiness:
Chinese President Xi Jinping signaled that China will send new pandas to the United States, calling them “envoys of friendship between the Chinese and American peoples.”
“We are ready to continue our cooperation with the United States on panda conservation, and do our best to meet the wishes of the Californians so as to deepen the friendly ties between our two peoples,” Xi said Wednesday during a dinner speech with business leaders.
The gesture came at the end of a day in which Xi and President Biden held their first face to face meeting in a year and pledged to try to reduce tensions. Xi did not share additional details on when or where pandas might be provided but appeared to suggest the next pair of pandas are most likely to come to California, probably San Diego.
The bears have long been the symbol of the U.S.-China friendship since Beijing gifted a pair of pandas to the National Zoo in Washington in 1972, ahead of the normalization of bilateral relations. Later, Beijing loaned the pandas to other U.S. zoos, with proceeds going back to panda conservation programs.
The National Zoo’s three giant pandas, Mei Xiang, Tian Tian and their cub Xiao Qi Ji, eight days ago began their long trip to China. After their departure, only four pandas are left in the United States, in the Atlanta Zoo.
“I was told that many American people, especially children, were really reluctant to say goodbye to the pandas, and went to the zoo to see them off,” Xi said in his speech. He added that he learned the San Diego Zoo and people in California “very much look forward to welcoming pandas back.”
We are living in a deadly nightmare, right here in the USA
This epic analysis of the horrific carnage caused by the AR-15 by the Washington Post is essential reading for every American with a conscience. It’s not easy. You may want to pour a drink or save some time to take a walk afterwards. But it’s important to bear witness.
Mass shootings involving AR-15s have become a recurring American nightmare.
The weapon, easy to operate and widely available, is now used more than any other in the country’s deadliest mass killings.
Fired by the dozens or hundreds in rapid succession, bullets from AR-15s have blasted through classroom doors and walls. They have shredded theater seats and splintered wooden church pews. They have mangled human bodies and, in a matter of seconds, shattered the lives of people attending a concert, shopping on a Saturday afternoon, going out with friends and family, working in their offices and worshiping at church and synagogue. They have killed first-graders, teenagers, mothers, fathers and grandparents.
But the full effects of the AR-15’s destructive force are rarely seen in public.
The impact is often shielded by laws and court rulings that keep crime scene photos and records secret. Journalists do not typically have access to the sites of shootings to document them. Even when photographs are available, news organizations generally do not publish them, out of concern about potentially dehumanizing victims or retraumatizing their families.
Now, drawing on an extensive review of photographs, videos and police investigative files from 11 mass killings between 2012 and 2023, The Washington Post is publishing the most comprehensive account to date of the repeating pattern of destruction wrought by the AR-15 — a weapon that was originally designed for military combat but has in recent years become one of the best-selling firearms on the U.S. market.
This piece includes never-before-released pictures taken by law enforcement officials after shootings inside Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Tex., in 2022, and the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Tex., in 2017, that were obtained by The Post. It is also based on Post interviews with survivors and first responders from multiple shootings as well as transcripts of official testimony provided by law enforcement officials who were among the first to witness the carnage. Read a note here from the executive editor about how The Post decided what to publish and why.
The review lays bare how the AR-15, a weapon that has soared in popularity over the past two decades as a beloved tool for hunting, target practice and self-defense, has also given assailants the power to instantly turn everyday American gathering places into zones of gruesome violence.
This is an oral history told in three parts that follows the chronological order of a typical AR-15 mass shooting. It weaves together pictures, videos and the recollections of people who endured different tragedies but have similar stories to tell.
Republican Senators Tommy Tuberville and Mike Lee maintained the Alabama Republican’s hold on military nominations despite a group of Republican senators who attempted to push through nominations when they returned to the Senate floor in the wee hours of Thursday morning.
Sens. Dan Sullivan, Joni Ernst, Lindsay Graham and Todd Young began their effort to confirm nominees around 12:15a.m. ET and wrapped around 3:45a.m. ET.
Tuberville was joined by Lee, who objected to confirming every nominee brought up for consideration. Once it became clear that Lee would speak at length every time he objected, the group of senators began reading the resumes of each of the nominees rather than attempting to confirm them one at a time.
As he objected, Lee acknowledged that he understood his colleagues’ concerns about military readiness and politicizing the military and noted that he wouldn’t necessarily have chosen the same approach as Tuberville. However, he insisted that he needed to “defend” the Alabama Republican.
“Notwithstanding the fact that it’s not the particular tactic that I would have chosen, he’s chosen a tactic that’s legitimate, that he has every right to deploy under the rules of the Senate,” said Lee.
Tuberville’s nine-month hold is now affecting nearly 400 military officials looking for Senate confirmation for their promotions. Typically, the nominees are confirmed quickly by voice vote. But Tuberville has placed a hold on all of them until the Pentagon changes its abortion policy unless Congress passes legislation to codify it.
Tuberville says he wants the Pentagon to scrap its post-Roe v. Wade policy providing reimbursements for service personnel who travel out-of-state for reproductive services, including abortions. Sullivan, Ernst, Graham and Young all emphasized that they also disagree with the policy — but attacked Tuberville for objecting to “nominees that have nothing to do” with the Defense Department’s abortion policy.
[…]
GOP senators have threatened to cut a deal with Democrats on a temporary change in Senate procedures to work around Tuberville and approve the nominees as a bloc. The effort would require at least nine Republicans to succeed.
Graham warned that he would vote with Democrats to temporarily change the Senate rules, allowing the Senate to bypass the hold, if Tuberville continues to block quick confirmations.
“I will work with Senator Tuberville and Lee and anybody else and everybody else to find a solution that’s acceptable to them to get us back on track,” he said. “But I promise you this – this will be the last holiday this happens. If it takes me to vote to break loose these folks, I will.”
Great. Why doesn’t he just do it then?
Graham pushed for Tuberville to find an offramp that would allow them to push back on the Pentagon’s abortion policy while still confirming nominees – namely, he said they can challenge the policy in court.
“I want to right the wrong of having abortion paid for by public taxpayer dollars from the defense coffers – I think it not only violates the Hyde Amendment, it’s bad policy,” he said. “You say it’s illegal, I tend to agree with you – go to court.”
Lee pushed back, arguing that there is no way they could win this case in a court of law. “They have crafted this thing so deliberately, so maliciously, so carefully, as to make it nearly impossible for anyone – who even could establish standing, which they can’t – to succeed on the merits,” he said.
What utter bullshit. The reason it won’t past muster in court is because the policy doesn’t have taxpayers paying for abortions in the first place! All it does is give service members paid time to go where abortion is legal. These people want women on the military to either go AWOL or give birth against their will. There is no law against the Pentagon allowing their members paid time off for any reason they want to do it.
It’s been just a clutch of days since former President Donald Trump and his allies made clear that if he wins reelection, he plans to gut the existing U.S. government and “install a pre-vetted, pro-Trump army of up to 54,000 loyalists” to take over senior legal, judicial, defense, regulatory, and domestic policy jobs in the civil service. It’s been under a week since he announced in an interview on Univision that he’d cheerfully “weaponize” the power of the Justice Department to indict his rivals for no other reason than that they were “beating me very badly.”
Also less than a week ago, he delivered his chilling Veterans Day promise to “root out the communists, Marxists, fascists, and radical-left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country, lie, steal, and cheat on elections, and will do anything possible, whether legally or illegally, to destroy America and the American dream.” The news of his plans to carry out mass deportations while rounding up millions of undocumented immigrants and interning them in sprawling detention camps, as well as his hope to cancel U.S. visas—for lawful green-card and student visa holders—who harbor “anti-American” views is also very recent. All of this is to be achieved by installing armies of lawyers, judges, and functionaries who will not erect roadblocks to such projects, as they did when he was president the first time, because they don’t believe in the rule of law as we understand it.
As Trump openly described his rationale for his plans last week in the most spine-chilling language yet, undocumented immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country.” And yes, the week is only half done.
We further learned, just a week ago, that Ohio Republicans plan to try to block a constitutional amendment protecting reproductive freedom by stripping state judges of the power to decide such cases. And we have learned in recent days of plans by allies of the new Republican House speaker to reinstate the brutally repressive Comstock Act so as to further limit sexual autonomy. And today we can’t seem to take our eyes off the now-violentphysical altercations happening in the very same Capitol building that was stormed by violent extremists trying to overturn the 2020 election. The cogs and the wheels of democratic governance sound janky as hell right now.
The stakes, we can probably agree, are in no way in doubt. As Bouie and others suggest, the Stephen Millers and Jeffrey Clarks and Steve Bannons are counting the minutes before “Flood the Zone With Shit” becomes the new “E Pluribus Unum.” Indeed, it almost seems as if “not the odds but the stakes” no longer captures a media failure alone; it actually also encapsulates the scope of a bitter political failure. We may actually have moved into the realm of journalism adequately covering the stakes, with the sad reality emerging that nobody seems to care much about the stakes at the present moment.
She goes on to point out that the horse race and the odds making are superfluous distractions. (I would add the snotty obsession in the press with Biden’s age which has been shown over and over again in the last few weeks to be purely about the fact that he “looks” old not that he’s incapable — at all.)
She writes, “It’s now just fascism vs democracy. ” That everyone who isn’t a MAGA cult member doesn’t see this still stuns me. As Lithwick points out it’s not as if there isn’t overwhelming evidence of what they have in mind.
And she asks an important question:
What if the media is actually covering the spectacle precisely because the stakes—casual brutality, violence, callousness, lawlessness, and the descent into anarchy—are perfectly visible, legible, and clear? It’s hard to read any other way the current threats by sitting senators who promise to beat up committee witnesses, or former speakers of the House who elbow their political opponents, or congresspeople who say they will impeach everyone who makes them mad while dabbling in the recreational threat to shut down the government. What if the problem isn’t that consumers of media fail to understand the actual stakes of losing democracy? What if the problem is really that watching this MMA smackdown between fascism and representative democracy is, in fact, the 2023 version of good, clean fun? As Bouie puts it in his New York Times piece on the subject this week, “The mundane truth of American politics is that much of what we want to know is in plain view. You don’t have to search hard or seek it out; you just have to listen. And Donald Trump is telling us, loud and clear, that he wants to end American democracy as we know it.”
There is going to come a moment—and for many of the writers cited above, that moment has already arrived—in which the media appropriately reports on the enormity of the stakes and nobody flinches.
We can argue all day about whether supporting Palestinians or criticizing Israel is antisemitism but this is the real deal and can’t be denied. And it was disseminated by the man who owns one of the world’s most powerful social media platforms directly to his 160 million followers.
The conspiracy theory, that Jewish populations are pushing “hatred against whites” and supporting “hordes of minorities” coming into the country, is the same one that motivated the 2018 Tree of Life shooter in Pittsburgh, as noted by The Atlantic’s Yair Rosenberg. Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes and other figures linked to white nationalism are cheering on Musk.
But the true middleman between the Tree of Life shooter in 2018 and the billionaire CEO of Tesla and SpaceX is Fox News — and specifically Lachlan Murdoch.
In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, a Fox guest railed against the “Soros-occupied State Department.” TPM’s Josh Marshall noted that this claim was “straight out of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the foundational anti-Semitic tract.” The guest was banned from Fox; in retrospect it appears his main offense was being ahead of the curve.
Indeed, it did not take long after the Tree of Life shooting for the conspiracy theory to pop up on Fox News, with former host Glenn Beck in particular making a similar argument while appearing on Sean Hannity’s show.
The major inflection point came when then-Fox host Tucker Carlson pushed his own version of replacement theory in 2021. There was a big outrage — but Fox Corp. CEO Lachlan Murdoch personally made clear that Carlson had the green light to go there. And go there he did. A New York Times analysis, conducted before Fox fired Carlson, shows that he pushed it in more than 400 episodes.
And now it’s not just Carlson. Numerous Fox personalities and others have followed his lead and made the conspiracy theory into a coreplank in GOP politics.
People need to start wrapping their minds around the fact that the current crisis in Israel and Gaza is complex and difficult and if they don’t start educating themselves bad actors like Musk and his Nazi friends’ exploitation of this situation are going to being us to a very bad place.
What the physical violence in the US Congress portends
Philip Bump takes a look at the possible meaning of GOP officials resorting to threats and physical violence this week on Capitol Hill.
It is probably not terribly useful to draw sweeping conclusions from Sen. Markwayne Mullin’s demand Tuesday that a witness at a Senate hearing stand up and fight him. Mullin’s background is atypical for a senator, including a brief stint about 15 years ago during which he did mixed-martial arts fighting. The witness, meanwhile, was the head of the Teamsters union; his willingness to goad Mullin (R-Okla.) into the challenge was probably also atypical for someone appearing on Capitol Hill.
We might also be cautious about the weird, probably overheated interaction between Reps. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), also on Tuesday, in which the latter accuses the former of elbowing him. Or the scuffle in January when the Republican Party was trying to elect McCarthy speaker in the first place. These were all isolated incidents, explainable in isolated contexts.
But there’s an undeniable thread that links them, an acceptance, however slight, of the idea that physical violence has a place in the resolution of disputes. Should this pattern continue — or accelerate — it would mirror other countries in which democracy is eroding. Including, at one point, the United States.
The question of the extent to which Americans accept political violence in general has been lingering for years now. The riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, crystallized those questions, given that it was an overt collapse of a democratic process — the 2020 presidential contest — into a violent effort by supporters of Donald Trump to help him retain power.
In its recently released measure of support for democracy in the United States, PRRI published data evaluating the extent to which Americans believed that violence might be a viable mechanism for affecting change. A third of Republicans indicated that “patriots” might need to resort to violence to right the national ship, up since 2021. But that sentiment also was up among Democrats and overall.
[…]
American University professor Thomas Zeitzoff, who studies political violence, recently released a book titled “Nasty Politics,” evaluating the extent to which countries use “nasty” political tools (from aggressive language to outright violence) to deploy or secure power. For the book, he looked at New York Times articles since the 1850s to determine how often the paper reported stories that indicated the use of nasty political tactics in the United States.
There was a surge at the time of the Civil War (the first vertical shading area below) and again at the time of Trump’s election in 2016.
Markwayne Mullin cited that surge in congressional violence before the civil war as a precedent (he actually said “presence”) to excuse his grotesque behavior.
[…]
In the Civil War era, outright violence was common on Capitol Hill. In her 2018 book “The Field of Blood,” Yale University professor Joanne Freeman tracked the number of violent incidents in Congress in the years before and after that conflict.
“In those times, … armed groups of Northern and Southern congressmen engaged in hand-to-hand combat on the House floor. Angry about rights violated and needs denied, and worried about the degradation of their section of the Union, they defended their interests with threats, fists and weapons,” she wrote. “When that fighting became endemic and congressmen strapped on knives and guns before heading to the Capitol every morning — when they didn’t trust the institution of Congress or even their colleagues to protect their persons — it meant something.”
“It meant extreme polarization and the breakdown of debate. It meant the scoring of parliamentary rules and political norms to the point of abandonment. It meant that structures of government and the bonds of Union were eroding in real time,” Freeman continued. “In short, it meant the collapse of our national civic structure to the point of crisis. The nation didn’t slip into disunion; it fought its way into it, even in Congress.”
The United States is hovering near a transitional point. The Varieties of Democracy project of the University of Gothenburg’s V-Dem Institute measures national support for the values of liberal democracy, including free and fair elections. In recent years, the United States’ measure of liberal democracy has slipped (albeit subtly). That corresponds to an increase in anti-pluralistic sentiment, within the Republican Party in particular.
[…]
In researching this article, I remembered that YouGov had, for years, slotted Trump’s tweets as president into its poll questions. It suddenly struck me that I didn’t remember seeing how Americans had responded to perhaps Trump’s most notorious social media post, the one in the early hours of Dec. 19, 2020, in which he encouraged his supporters to come to Washington on Jan. 6, 2021. The day would feature a big protest, he said, that would “be wild.”
Pick your metaphor. Whistling past a graveyard. Tiptoeing through a minefield. Every day feels like the country is doing a tightrope walk between the Twin Towers. And we know what happened to them.
The question of Donald Trump’s qualification for any elected office is a hot potato neither the courts nor election officials nor Congress want to touch.
Efforts to block former President Donald Trump from being on the ballot next year have yet to score a major win in court. Nobody in power seems willing to decide whether the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause disqualifies him from returning to the White House. Instead, judges and state officials have either pawned off that decision to someone else or determined that there will be some other, better time to make a judgment.
The result is a rapidly shrinking window for that decision to be made. And, based on the standard in a ruling issued in Michigan on Tuesday, we might not know the answer until after all the votes have been cast on Election Day next year. It might be after the presidential electors have met and submitted their ballots. It might come down to Congress on Jan. 6, 2025, to decide whether Trump is even eligible to become president.
Earlier this year, legal scholars, including prominent conservatives, came out in support of the idea that Trump is constitutionally ineligible for office and that it fell to election officials to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. (That section bars from federal and state office anyone who previously swore to support the Constitution but then had “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”) Since then, much of the energy from democracy activists and lawyers has focused on convincing secretaries of state of the argument, but they’ve met with either hesitancy or outright rejection from officials. At best, as in the case of Michigan’s Jocelyn Benson, there has been an openness to acting — provided, that is, that a court rules whether Trump’s role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol triggered the insurrection clause.
But one of the cases seeking such a ruling fell short on Tuesday. Judge James Robert Redford rightfully noted in his decision that Michigan state law doesn’t provide for the secretary of state to block a party from naming a primary candidate. The Minnesota Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion last week, finding that the question of whether Trump could appear on the general election ballot wasn’t “ripe” or “about to occur.”
Because there has been no primary in Minnesota and Trump is not the official candidate for the Republican Party. Yet. The court brought in a basin and washed its hands.
The Minnesota court didn’t close the door on another challenge later. But as my colleague Jordan Rubin noted, Redford suggested that even the general election might not be enough to warrant the courts’ intervening. Instead, Redford said, the whole thing might be a “political question” best left to the people or their elected representatives. The judge further noted that the Constitution’s 12th and 20th Amendments directly deal with the election of the president and the vice president and that both of them give that role to Congress.
It’s worth pausing here to take a step back and note that technically it’s the Electoral College that votes for president. And though the drafters of the Constitution foresaw electors as independent, well-respected members of the community who would adjudicate the candidates’ qualifications, that’s not how it has played out. Each state generally assigns its electoral votes based on who won the popular vote, which is reflected in partisan slates of Electoral College members. Those slates then vote for their parties’ chosen candidates, and those votes are then transmitted to Congress to be counted.
Congress amended the Electoral Count Reform Act to prevent the kinds of electoral vote scheming for which Trump and his alleged accomplices face criminal charges.
Even Trump appealing any 14th Amendment ruling against him to the U.S. Supreme Court might not result in a final decision. The court could dismiss it as a nonjusticiable political question “beyond the reach of the federal courts,” as it did in Rucho v. Common Cause. They washed their hands too. That’s not so say the conservative majority would, but it could, as Brown notes.
WWCD: What would Congress do on January 6, 2025 if Trump won?
Bear in mind that this would be taking place in a world where Trump has won not only the GOP nomination but also the general election. While many of the pending cases may hope to reach the Supreme Court for a ruling ahead of the election, it’s possible that the conservative justices would also punt while citing the “political question” doctrine. If that’s the case, it’s difficult to see this as not being one of the biggest questions for members of Congress on the campaign trail leading up to 2024: “Will you vote to disqualify Donald Trump on Jan. 6?”
That’s exactly the kind of chaos that organizers hoped to prevent in trying to prevent Trump from being a candidate at all. Because, unlike his coup attempt, Congress in this case would be fulfilling its constitutional duty if it were to disqualify Trump when it counts electoral votes. It would be an act of delayed justice after the Senate acquitted him in his second impeachment trial and lost the accompanying chance to bar him from holding future office. At the time, the argument from Republicans like Sen. Mitch McConnell was that the courts would be the one to hold him accountable, a deeply ironic sentiment given the courts’ insistence that it’s a matter for Congress.
And yet, in a very real sense, it can’t be ignored that disqualifying Trump this way would be Congress’ doing exactly what Trump has, in his projection, accused Democrats of doing: trying to reverse the results of an election. The fact that Trump was most likely never eligible wouldn’t matter. The Republican Party, in allowing him to run and making him its nominee, will have known this was a possibility but will still support his cries that the whole system is rigged. And if we are forced to spend the next 14 months in suspense, it will only increase the chances that, when faced with this monumental decision, Congress will falter.
There’s not enough antacid in all the drugstores for this.
Finally: an explanation for how the United States of America could elect an under-educated, grandiose, narcissist reality TV star to the presidency. Social media (especially TikTok) is a digital Petri dish for breeding them. This TikTok freak show is completely nuts.
The Guardian made the unusual move Wednesday to delete a 21-year-old letter written by Osama bin Laden from their site after several TikTokers urged followers to read the al Qaeda leader’s missive, causing “Letter to America” to go viral on the social media platform.
Guardian readers are now met with the message, “This page previously displayed a document containing, in translation, the full text of Osama bin Laden’s ‘Letter to the American people,’ as reported in the Observer on Sunday 24 November 2002. The document, which was published here on the same day, was removed on 15 November 2023.”
In a statement to TheWrap, a spokesperson for the U.K. outlet said, “The transcript published on our website 20 years ago has been widely shared on social media without the full context. Therefore we have decided to take it down and direct readers to the news article that originally contextualized it instead.”
[…]
The TikTok trend seems to have started with a video posted by Lynnette Adkins, in which she told her nearly 12 million followers, “I need everyone to stop doing what they’re doing right now and go read ‘Letter to America,’ I feel like I’m going through an existential crisis right now.”
Responses from fellow TikTokers include “my eyes have been opened.” Another user who shared the letter wrote, wrote, “We’ve been lied to our entire lives, I remember watching people cheer when Osama was found and killed.”
Ruth Ben-Ghiat (“Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present“) wonders how AI (via social media, implied) might serve the propaganda agendas of autocrats and terrorists.
Weaponized on behalf of autocrats and terrorists (overlapping categories), rather than on behalf of peace and democracy. https://t.co/canx3aFmry
I blame the dismissal of liberal arts as a waste of time and education dollars. What good is it if it doesn’t translate into a money-making career? Right now in North Carolina, Republican lawmakers are working to undermine state-supported colleges and divert funding to more trade schools. Nothing wrong with trade schools, but their focus is on breeding a pool of workers to support the economy, not on raising an electorate responsible for preserving a democratic republic. Or reading Alexander Hamilton.
If I read Ms. Adkins’ LinkedIn right, the self-employed “Content Creator” majored in marketing.
Best line: "You can make a video about it so people can gasp and shit their pants about how edgy it is"
Trump wants to have it both ways in the election but I have no doubt that he will take revenge on the abortion rights movement the moment he gets into office. Here’s how he might do it:
The next Republican president could effectively ban most abortions through a simple policy change at the Department of Justice, experts and advocates on both sides of the abortion debate say.
While Republicans disagree about whether to pursue a national abortion ban that would face long odds in Congress, a GOP president may be able to unilaterally curb access to medication abortion across the country using an obscure 19th-century law.
At issue is the meaning of the 1873 Comstock Act, which banned the mailing of “obscene” material like pornography, as well as abortion drugs and contraception. While the law has been cut down over the years, the abortion provision remained but was ignored while Roe v. Wade was in place.
Medication abortion usually involves the use of two drugs, mifepristone and misoprostol, in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy, and accounts for more than half of abortions in the U.S.
The Heritage Foundation, which has proposed detailed policies for a potential GOP administration, argues that Comstock “unambiguously prohibits mailing abortion drugs” and says the next administration should “enforce federal law against providers and distributors of [abortion] pills.”
The Biden administration disagrees with this interpretation. A Justice Department memo issued last year contends that the law doesn’t prohibit mailing abortion drugs when the sender expects them to be used lawfully.
A new administration could easily change that interpretation, experts say, and not just restrict patients from receiving pills at home — but also stop pharmacies and health care providers from getting shipments.
“If Trump were elected, not only would I not be surprised, but I would expect the administration to direct DOJ to overturn its guidance on the Comstock Act and rule that shipping mifepristone through the U.S. Postal Service is a violation of that statute,” said Lawrence Gostin, a Georgetown Law professor who supports abortion rights.
This “would create a significant impediment to access to the most common, safest and most effective method of getting an abortion,” Gostin added.
The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment on its thinking about the Comstock Act.
They outsource their thinking on things like this to the Heritage Foundation. If Heritage wants it, Heritage will have it.
This is already on the menu in a major lawsuit anyway:
The Comstock Act is also invoked in a closely watched lawsuit challenging the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of mifepristone — in which Baptist is the lead counsel — which could reach the Supreme Court this term.
That lawsuit also argues that Comstock makes mailing abortion drugs illegal in the first place. However, that argument received little attention in lower courts, so the Supreme Court may not consider it.
Abortion rights advocates argue that interpreting Comstock so literally is ignoring its context and legal precedent.
They would almost certainly sue to block a DOJ policy change, leaving it to the courts — and possibly the Supreme Court — to decide.
“It’s tailor-made for a Supreme Court that considers itself textualist,” said Mary Ziegler, a UC Davis law professor and legal historian. “There’s a plausible argument that the language of the statute is unambiguous.”
Taking the statute so literally could have much broader implications for abortion, she added, extending to all forms of the procedure and even prohibiting it under circumstances like endangerment to the life of the pregnant person.
Ziegler said abortion rights supporters likely haven’t put much focus on Comstock to avoid legitimizing GOP arguments as courts consider the legality of mifepristone.
“I think it’s a fear that taking the Comstock Act too seriously would make it more likely that the Supreme Court will take it seriously,” she said
I hope they’re working on it behind the scenes just in case. Keep in mind that Comstock was also used to prevent women from obtaining birth control. The far right religious nuts like the man who is second in line to the presidency are all-in on that too:
AT THE LOUISIANA Right to Life Forum on Nov. 15, 2013, Mike Johnson — still lawyer, and not yet a public official — spoke about his efforts challenging the Department of Health and Human Services’ contraceptive mandate, a provision of the Affordable Care Act that required employers to provide birth control coverage as part of their insurance plans.
In his view, Johnson explained, certain types of birth control are methods of abortion.
“Everybody asks us all the time: ‘Why do you guys care so much? The HHS mandate it’s really just about contraception, sterilization. … What’s the big deal?Well, those are abortifacients,” Johnson says. “The morning after pill, as we know, is an abortifacient.”
Neither sterilization or emergency contraception medications like Plan B, are abortifacients. Both are forms of birth control that prevent a pregnancy from occurring, but do not end an existing pregnancy. A representative for Johnson, now the speaker of the House of Representatives, did not respond to an inquiry about whether Johnson still believes those forms of birth control are “abortifacients.”
Johnson is known for being among the most anti-abortion lawmakers in Congress, and for railing against the use of “abortion as a form of birth control” before he was in office. But his statements and actions suggest he does not see much difference between abortion as a form of birth control and birth control as a form of birth control.
As a lawyer, Johnson worked on multiple cases representing plaintiffs who refused to dispense, counsel, or provide emergency contraception, which they considered to be abortion-inducing drugs. And as a congressman, Johnson has repeatedly voted against efforts to expand, fund, or protect access to birth control and other family planning services — including for members of the military.
While a certain, largely female segment of the Republican party has undertaken efforts to expand access to birth control in the wake of Dobbs, Johnson has not joined those efforts.
Judge Luttig tweet this today, writing, “Prophetic words from Alexander Hamilton to George Washington in 1792 — as apt and timely today as they were over 230 years ago.”
“A people so enlightened and so diversified as the people of this Country can surely never be brought to [monarchy], but from convulsions and disorders, in consequence of the acts of popular demagogues.
The truth unquestionably is, that the only path to a subversion of the republican system of the Country is, by flattering the prejudices of the people, and exciting their jealousies and apprehensions, to throw affairs into confusion, and bring on civil commotion. Tired at length of anarchy, or want of government, they may take shelter in the arms of monarchy for repose and security.
Those then, who resist a confirmation of public order, are the true Artificers of monarchy—not that this is the intention of the generality of them. Yet it would not be difficult to lay the finger upon some of their party who may justly be suspected.
When a man unprincipled in private life desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper, possessed of considerable talents, having the advantage of military habits—despotic in his ordinary demeanour—known to have scoffed in private at the principles of liberty— when such a man is seen to mount the hobby horse of popularity—to join in the cry of danger to liberty—to take every opportunity of embarrassing the General Government & bringing it under suspicion—to flatter and fall in with all the nonsense of the zealots of the day— it may justly be suspected that his object is to throw things into confusion that he may “ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.””
