| Today, a day after the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a case with far-reaching implications for abortion access across the United States, we're going to do something that we've never done before: We're going to send you an email that's not actually for you at all. Pamela, Today, a day after the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a case with far-reaching implications for abortion access across the United States, we're going to do something that we've never done before: We're going to send you an email that's not actually for you at all. Here's what we need you to do first: Think about three people in your life who share our values. They could be friends, family, neighbors, former classmates, your kid's best friend's mom (you get the idea). Jot them down. They should be people you think care about democracy. People who care about our freedom and our choices. People who, sure, will vote in November -- but people who might be interested in doing more and may not know what more they could be doing. Got them? Great. In a few minutes, we're going to ask you to do something with this list. Did someone just forward you this email? Hi! Welcome. First, congratulations on having such a great friend who, obviously, thinks the world of you. We hear you're the kind of person who is worried about our democracy and attacks on our reproductive freedoms. If that's accurate, you're in the right place. And we've got to talk about what happened yesterday at the Supreme Court and what's at stake in November. So, keep reading. | First, Let's Talk About Yesterday at the Supreme Court On Tuesday, a Supreme Court stacked with Donald Trump's MAGA justices heard oral arguments in a case that could jeopardize abortion access even in blue states that have taken measures to protect it. Here are the five things you need to know about FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and Danco Laboratories, L.L.C. v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (because they illustrate how Republicans are working through the courts and the legislatures to roll back reproductive rights nationwide): - Judge-Shopping in Amarillo: Just two months after the Supreme Court overturned Roe and ended federal constitutional protection for abortion, a coalition of five anti-abortion medical groups, none of which are based in Texas, incorporated as the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. Three months later, they filed a lawsuit in Amarillo, Texas. This maneuver ensured their lawsuit would be heard by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a "Trump-appointed darling of the far right," known for his conservative rulings and anti-abortion views.
- False Claims Against Mifepristone: The lawsuit against mifepristone is filled with unfounded claims, challenging the drug's safety despite its proven efficacy and the positive outcomes experienced by more than 6 million Americans. These allegations ignore the substantial body of research confirming mifepristone as a safe (safer than Tylenol, in fact) and effective component of medication abortion, demonstrating a deliberate attempt to distort the drug's safety record for ideological ends.
- Outdated Legal Arguments: Plaintiffs in the case have invoked the Comstock Act of 1873, a long-defunct law originally aimed at prohibiting the mailing of "obscene" materials, to argue against the FDA's approval of mifepristone. By asserting that the distribution of mifepristone through the mail violates this nearly 150-year-old statute, the lawsuit attempts to apply an outdated legal framework to modern medical practices and regulatory decisions, showcasing a desperate reach to curtail reproductive rights.
- A Threat to FDA's Regulatory Authority: A victory for the plaintiffs would not only jeopardize access to mifepristone but also challenge the FDA's longstanding authority to make science-based decisions on medication. It's an unprecedented attack on the FDA's independence, with potential implications for the regulatory process, and could put every approved medication in the political crosshairs (including birth control and HIV medications).
- Exploiting Legal Technicalities to Undermine Reproductive Rights: The plaintiffs are so-called "pro-life doctors" who claim it would cause them a serious moral injury to treat a patient with emergency complications from taking mifepristone -- which are incredibly rare, and they've never been forced to do. This stretch for legal standing exemplifies how anti-abortion advocates are misusing the judicial system, aiming to set a precedent that could restrict access to reproductive healthcare nationwide. Their strategy showcases a clear intent to dismantle protections for reproductive rights, leveraging the courts to enact a nationwide agenda against abortion.
At yesterday's oral arguments, even some of the Republican justices sounded skeptical of the baseless claims presented by the anti-abortion plaintiffs, suggesting the Court may decide the plaintiffs haven't proved they have standing to sue. This is what you're going to see in today's news stories. Unfortunately, even if that best-case-scenario ends up being the Court's ruling, Justices Thomas and Alito's questions about the Comstock Act will likely be taken as a clarion call by anti-abortion extremists to bring forward a case attempting to enforce that long-defunct federal law as a nationwide ban on all abortion. This shouldn't surprise us -- because this has never just been about Roe. It's Time To Start Acting Like A Nationwide Abortion Ban Is Imminent Under Donald Trump and Republicans -- Because It Is In the lead-up to the Dobbs decision (which overturned Roe v. Wade), many people didn't believe that it was something that could happen -- thanks, in large part, to the constant Republican narrative and subsequent media coverage that Roe was "settled law." Senator Ben Sasse called people who were warning others that the constitutional right to abortion was at risk "hysterical." Senator Susan Collins called it "over-the-top rhetoric and distortions." Senator Lisa Murkowski assured us she could never imagine Amy Coney Barrett voting to overturn Roe. We've all seen what happened next. Amy Coney Barrett and the Republican majority on SCOTUS voted to overturn Roe, Republican elected officials have already imposed abortion bans in 21 states, and last year, they introduced more than 380 state bills attacking access to reproductive healthcare. One in three women lives in states where abortion is not accessible. A 10-year-old rape victim was forced to leave her home state of Indiana to get an abortion. Kate Cox waited for a bunch of politicians to rule and still ultimately had to leave Texas to end a pregnancy with a lethal fetal diagnosis. Brittany Watts was charged with a felony after miscarrying at home. And these are just a fraction of the stories of people who have paid the price for the first step in Republicans' plans to eradicate our reproductive rights nationwide. Unfortunately, the exact same pre-Dobbs gaslighting is happening now -- Republicans are telling voters that abortion should be left up to the states. When a national abortion ban comes up, they shake their heads, wave their hands, and say, "Nothing to see here!" And voters are buying it. The Evidence Real-talk: Donald Trump and Republicans WILL ban abortion nationwide if they win in November. We're not saying it because it makes for a good dramatic email or to, as Senator John Cornyn accused us, "stoke fears and mislead the American people." We're saying it because Republicans are telling us that's what they'll do. Here are five pieces of evidence. Sourced. Verified. Black and white: - Their budget: This week, the Republican Study Committee (RSC), which represents 100% of House Republican leadership, released a budget that champions a national abortion ban without exceptions for rape or incest; advances the same dangerous concept of fetal personhood that the Alabama Supreme Court used to undermine IVF access; advocates for both the prohibition of mifepristone and blocking the FDA from ever approving abortion medications; proposes to revoke policies aiding veterans in accessing abortion care for health, life-threatening situations, or in cases of rape or incest; and slashes funding for contraception for low-income and uninsured women.
- A 15-week national abortion ban: Donald Trump signaled his support for a 15-week national abortion ban.
- Failure to protect IVF: In the past month, Senate Republicans have twice blocked legislation protecting IVF access.
- … Or contraception: Republicans in the House and Senate have repeatedly stood in the way of codifying access to contraception.
- … Or mifepristone: 145 Republican Members of Congress signed an amicus brief in yesterday's case, asking the Supreme Court to slash access to the abortion pill.
What This Means for the Next 222 Days and What You Can Do Right Now The implications of the upcoming election couldn't be more dire. A Trump victory, bolstered by a Republican Senate, would pave the way for a future where the Supreme Court (and lower courts) are stacked even further against reproductive rights. It's a future where ideological rulings could obliterate even more of our choices and freedoms. Donald Trump and a Republican-led Congress have told us their plan. The only question now is whether we take them at their word. We should know by now that no one is going to save us from Donald Trump and the Republican playbook to ban abortion nationwide. Not the Republican establishment. Not the media. Not the courts. Look around -- there's nobody but us. We have to stop him. In solidarity,
Indivisible Team  | 
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.