Sunday Shows Highlight Both Sides Of Roe's Demise, Because Sunday Shows Bad At Journalism
You didn't expect any better.
There have been many evil reactions since the illegitimate Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. And there have been some good ones!
Let's take a look at some of both from this week's Sunday shows.
Gov. Asa Hutchinson and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on NBC's 'Meet The Press'
Chuck Todd asked Arkansas GOP Gov. Asa Hutchinson about the trigger law bill he signed that banned all abortions except to protect the life of the mother, in the wake of Roe's untimely death.
All Hutchinson had to offer was how sad he was about kids having to carry incest pregnancies to term.
TODD: So if a 13-year-old though in Arkansas is raped by a relative, that 13-year-old cannot get an abortion in Arkansas. Are you comfortable with that?
HUTCHINSON: I’m not – I would've preferred a different outcome than that. But that's not the debate today in Arkansas. It might be in the future. But for now, the law triggered with only one exception.
Hutchinson sure wishes the abortion ban bill he signed included those provisions, but what was he supposed to do? Veto the bill? That would actually take courage! Can't have that.
Todd correctly pointed out that whatever anyone thought about Roe, it never forced anyone to do anything they didn't want to. He asked Hutchinson if he felt uncomfortable forcing people to do things they don't want to. Hutchinson simply reiterated how comfortable he was with it.
HUTCHINSON: Well, no, I think it's a very appropriate ruling. Obviously, when you're looking at the government and the power of the government forcing someone to carry a child to term, you've got to think that through. And legislators are thinking that through.
The GOP hasn't "thought this through."
Here's Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez responding to Hutchinson's bullshit:
\u201cWATCH: @RepAOC (D-N.Y.) responds to Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R-Ark.) and the state's abortion ban.\n\n\u201cThis decision and this policy will kill people no matter what their spin and what their talking points are.\u201d\u201d— Meet the Press (@Meet the Press) 1656283625
AOC listed actions the Democratic Party could take to protect abortion, like opening clinics on federal lands in red states or expanding access to abortion pills. And she underlined that this is "not just a crisis of Roe," but a "crisis of our democracy."
\u201cWATCH: Democrats must realize that the implications of the Roe decision are "not just a crisis of Roe" but "a crisis of our democracy,\u201d @AOC says. #MTP \n\n\u201cThe Supreme Court has dramatically overreached its authority. \u2026 This is a crisis of legitimacy.\u201d\u201d— Meet the Press (@Meet the Press) 1656256681
After Todd showed a quote from Democratic Senator Joe Manchin saying he was "misled" by justices who lied "under oath" about their intentions regarding Roe, AOC laid out what actions should be taken considering these abuses.
\u201cICYMI: Impeachment \u201cshould be very seriously considered" if Supreme Court nominees lied under oath, @repaoc tells #MTP.\n\nRep. Ocasio-Cortez: "There must be consequences for such a deeply destabilizing action and hostile takeover of our Democratic institutions."\u201d— Meet the Press (@Meet the Press) 1656326194
If we take Joe Manchin or Susan Collins at their word that they are shocked Brett Kavanaugh or Neil Gorsuch lied to them, Democrats must act to show that they are not above them law.
Or we guess they could just call bullshit on Collins and Manchin pretending to be stupid and just label them the pandering assclowns they are.
Gov. Kristi Noem and Sen. Elizabeth Warren on ABC's 'This Week'
South Dakota GOP Gov. Kristi Noem made dual appearances on ABC's "This Week" and CBS's "Face The Nation." In both cases, the anchors called Noem and the GOP out on their pretend concern about children.
On "Face The Nation" Noem promised any law enforcement would be directed toward abortion doctors, not women:
\u201cAbortion is now a criminal act in South Dakota, but Gov. Kristi Noem says the state will work to ensure women aren\u2019t prosecuted when it comes to abortions.\n\n\u201cIt will always be focused towards those doctors who knowingly break the law to perform abortions in our state.\u201d\u201d— Face The Nation (@Face The Nation) 1656255298
But over on ABC, Noem didn't completely foreclose the idea of trying to criminalize people leaving South Dakota for out-of-state abortion care:
\u201cEven thought she repeatedly said women shouldn't be prosecuted for getting abortions, Noem's ABC interviews ends with her leaving the door open to prosecuting South Dakota residents who travel to other states for abortions\u201d— Aaron Rupar (@Aaron Rupar) 1656255100
Surprise, Noem had little response when it was pointed out just how shitty red states like hers are at caring for actual living and breathing women and children.
These red states will do nothing for pregnant people, because life is only precious until people are born, after which they are moochers. Also maybe they will prosecute people for trying to travel out of state for healthcare.
Thankfully after Noem was done spewing her talking points, ABC had Sen. Elizabeth Warren to respond to Noem's lies. She didn't mince words:
WARREN: Look, what she's really saying is that when this decision is made, it should be made by the government. That the government should move in and the government should determine whether or not a pregnancy is forced to continue or whether or not a pregnancy can be terminated.
She also had her own solution to the SCOTUS legitimacy crisis:
\u201cThe Supreme Court has "burned whatever legitimacy they may still have had" with their ruling\u00a0overturning Roe v. Wade, Sen. Elizabeth Warren tells @MarthaRaddatz. \n\n"They just took the last of it and set a torch to it.\u201d https://t.co/EPXQrwR4Ui\u201d— This Week (@This Week) 1656275930
More on that in this Wonkette post right here!
Sen. Lindsey Graham and Stacey Abrams on 'Fox News Sunday'
On Fox News, Lindsey Graham said he just really doesn't think the Supreme Court should take away people's contraception and their marriages, but then he changed the subject and started blaming Ruth Bader Ginsburg for whatever is happening now.
\u201cAsked on Fox News about Clarence Thomas saying SCOTUS should revisit rights to same-sex marriage & contraception, Lindsey Graham signals he doesn't think the court should go that far, but then brings up RBG, saying "she chose not to retire ... it was an amazing series of events."\u201d— Aaron Rupar (@Aaron Rupar) 1656251590
Oh, he could barely contain his glee.
Meanwhile, Stacey Abrams smacked down conservatives using race to justify their taking away of reproductive rights.
\u201cStacey Abrams on Fox News on arguments that legal abortion results in the loss of too many "Black lives that matter": "I think that's a very specious argument that's used to cloak what is I think a deeply disturbing approach to this conversation."\u201d— Aaron Rupar (@Aaron Rupar) 1656252618
The overturning of Roe v. Wade has made what we have been warning about starkly clear: The GOP is an existential threat to democracy and freedom. The Democratic Party, if it intends to meet this moment, needs to do more than use this for fundraising emails while publicly stating they want "a strong GOP" or calling a cynical villain a "man of honor.” AOC, Warren, Abrams and many others have stepped up to fight head-on since this happened.
Democratic leadership would do well to follow their lead.
Have a week.
Wonkette is fully funded by readers like you! If you love Wonkette, DONATE.
'With Sorrow,' They Dissent.
Well fuck a duck.
For a good sense of just how monumental a loss of freedom the Supreme Court's decision today is, look no further than the eloquent, furious dissent written jointly by Justices Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor, which begins on page 148 of the linked PDF. The dissent is a thoughtful protest of the majority's "cavalier approach to overturning women's rights," and as much as it's a careful dissection of the legal and reasoning flaws in the majority opinion overturning both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, it's also very consciously written for the future, to draw a bright line around the disaster that the Court's decision today will be for women, for liberty, and for the Supreme Court's own legitimacy.
In short, the dissent says, the majority's decision will result in "the curtailment of women’s rights, and of their status as free and equal citizens."
The three justices warn that the decision not only paves the way for states to ban all abortions, with no exceptions for rape or incest, but that it sets the stage for women to be arrested and imprisoned for seeking an abortion. The claim that laws governing abortion will simply be decided by the states is far too glib, they point out: Women who can afford to go to the states where abortion remains legal will do so, while women who can't afford to travel will be forced to have children they also won't be able to afford to raise. Beyond that, additional restrictions will only be a matter of time:
After this decision, some States may block women from traveling out of State to obtain abortions, or even from receiving abortion medications from out of State. Some may criminalize efforts, including the provision of information or funding, to help women gain access to other States’ abortion services. Most threatening of all, no language in today’s decision stops the Federal Government from prohibiting abortions nationwide, once again from the moment of conception and without exceptions for rape or incest.
When that happens, the "challenge for a woman will be to finance a trip not to 'New York [or] California' but to Toronto."
For American women, even the Constitution itself "will, today’s majority holds, provide no shield, despite its guarantees of liberty and equality for all."
Kagan, Sotomayor, and Stephens also warn that "no one should be confident that this majority is done with its work," pointing out that for all the majority's claims that the decision is only excising the right to a legal abortion, there's no reason that should remain the case. After all, the majority says its decision to overturn Roe and Casey is because the right to abortion isn't “deeply rooted in history.” But then, neither are the rights the majority says it won't touch (or in Clarence Thomas's case, the rights he wants to eliminate as soon as possible).
So one of two things must be true. Either the majority does not really believe in its own reasoning. Or if it does, all rights that have no history stretching back to the mid19th century are insecure. Either the mass of the majority’s opinion is hypocrisy, or additional constitutional rights are under threat. It is one or the other.
Ultimately, the dissenters note, there's "simply no good reason for the upheaval in law and society" the majority is setting off with its decision. Instead, it's the basest power politics:
The Court reverses course today for one reason and one reason only: because the composition of this Court has changed.
The dissent argues that both cases were grounded in "core constitutional concepts of individual freedom, and of the equal rights of citizens to decide on the shape of their lives." For that matter, the right to have control over one's own body is a fundamental freedom: Free people don't want the government deciding what they can do with their lives. That means that no, basic rights can't be left to majority rule:
Even in the face of public opposition, we uphold the right of individuals—yes, including women—to make their own choices and chart their own futures. Or at least, we did once.
For good measure, the dissent takes a well-aimed swipe at the completely arbitrary view of "history" the majority takes, not only in today's decision, but also in yesterday's Guns Everywhere ruling. Noting that Samuel Alito reaches as far back as the 13th Century for historical precedents, the three justices note that he completely ignores English and early American law that allowed abortions up until the time of "quickening," when a fetus could be felt moving in the uterus. Can't respect any history that sounds at all like Roe's standard of fetal viability, after all, so,
The majority’s core legal postulate, then, is that we in the 21st century must read the Fourteenth Amendment just as its ratifiers did. [...] If the ratifiers did not understand something as central to freedom, then neither can we. Or said more particularly: If those people did not understand reproductive rights as part of the guarantee of liberty conferred in the Fourteenth Amendment, then those rights do not exist
Then, in a brilliant observation, the dissenters point out the previous paragraph deliberately misstated the real historical context of the adoption of the Constitution and the 14th Amendment:
We referred there to the “people” who ratified the Fourteenth Amendment: What rights did those “people” have in their heads at the time? But, of course, “people” did not ratify the Fourteenth Amendment. Men did. So it is perhaps not so surprising that the ratifiers were not perfectly attuned to the importance of reproductive rights for women’s liberty, or for their capacity to participate as equal members of our Nation. [...]
When the majority says that we must read our foundational charter as viewed at the time of ratification (except that we may also check it against the Dark Ages), it consigns women to second-class citizenship.
For that matter, the men who ratified the 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process for all certainly wouldn't have thought it "gave black and white people a right to marry each other. To the contrary, contemporaneous practice deemed that act quite as unprotected as abortion."
So watch out for this sudden dedication to originalism, everyone who's benefited from Loving v. Virginia.
The dissent is full of little moments like that, contrasting the majority's doctrinaire claims to "neutrality" and "history" with the harm the decision will do to the law, especially to the principle of stare decisis, which holds that precedents matter unless there's a huge reason to set them aside. And again, there have been no changes in either the law or the facts of pregnancy and birth; the only change has been that there's now a majority on the court who have pledged to undo Roe and Casey, and that's that. "Because we can do it to you" is the new rule in America, and the supposed historical justification is absurd:
Because laws in 1868 deprived women of any control over their bodies, the majority approves States doing so today. Because those laws prevented women from charting the course of their own lives, the majority says States can do the same again. Because in 1868, the government could tell a pregnant woman—even in the first days of her pregnancy—that she could do nothing but bear a child, it can once more impose that command. Today’s decision strips women of agency over what even the majority agrees is a contested and contestable moral issue. It forces her to carry out the State’s will, whatever the circumstances and whatever the harm it will wreak on her and her family. In the Fourteenth Amendment’s terms, it takes away her liberty. Even before we get to stare decisis, we dissent.
There's so much more, and it's such good writing that it could almost give you comfort to know there are still principled, thoughtful people on the Court to at least mark America's abandonment of freedom for half its citizens. But the danger is no longer potential. We're in distress going forward from today:
After today, young women will come of age with fewer rights than their mothers and grandmothers had. The majority accomplishes that result without so much as considering how women have relied on the right to choose or what it means to take that right away. The majority’s refusal even to consider the life-altering consequences of reversing Roe and Casey is a stunning indictment of its decision.
And the Court's legitimacy can only suffer going forward, they note, pointing out that the Court's legitimacy can be erased far more quickly than it was built up over decades.
With good reason, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer close,
With sorrow—for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection—we dissent.
It feels all too much like an epitaph, because that's what it is.
[Supreme Court of the United States]
Yr Wonkette is funded entirely by reader donations. If you can, please help out with a monthly donation of $5 or $10, so we can help each other get through whatever's next.
Senate Ready To Pass Gun Bill After All? Huh!
It has grants for red flag laws and closes the 'boyfriend loophole.' Good!
The Senate appears ready to actually pass a real bipartisan gun bill, modest though it may be, after a procedural vote yesterday moved the legislation forward on a 64-34 vote yesterday. It's likely to get a final vote by the end of the week, which is encouraging. The vote came a few hours after the bipartisan negotiators released the text of the bill and announced that they had overcome Republican qualms that had appeared to put the bill in danger last week.
Read More:
We Got A Gun Bill! It's ... OK, We Guess?
John Cornyn: Wait, Did I Say 'Gun Bill'? Pretty Sure I Said 'Guns Are SWELL'
California's Red Flag Law Stops Mass Shootings, How Is That Even Legal?
All 50 Democrats in the Senate voted to move the bill forward, as did 14 Republicans, including lead GOP negotiators Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Thom Tillis (R-North Carolina). In a statement, the negotiators, who also included Democrats Chris Murphy (Connecticut) and Kyrsten Sinema (Arizona), said,
Our legislation will save lives and will not infringe on any law-abiding American’s Second Amendment rights. [...] We look forward to earning broad, bipartisan support and passing our commonsense legislation into law.
Modest though the "Bipartisan Safer Communities Act" is, it does include provisions that are likely to reduce some gun deaths. Most notably, it funds grants to states to implement "red flag" laws that allow judges to temporarily take guns away from people who are a threat to themselves or others. As we've noted, red flag laws really do save lives, and even prevent mass shootings.
The bill also closes the "boyfriend loophole" by prohibiting gun ownership by those convicted of misdemeanor domestic abuse or stalking of a dating partner or recent dating partner, and enhances background checks by allowing checks of juvenile records before a firearm purchase.
Other provisions clarify who must register as a federal firearms dealer (It's this one guy named Dave), and also will crack down on gun trafficking and illegal "straw purchases" of firearms, like when a person with a clean criminal record buys a gun from that asshole Dave on behalf of someone who's prohibited from owning a gun. People pardoned by Donald Trump will still be able to buy all the guns they want.
Also too, the Texas Tribune explains, the bill
includes $11 billion for mental health services and $2 billion for community-based antiviolence programs. It also includes money to help young people access mental health services via telemedicine, money for more school-based mental health centers and support for suicide hotlines.
Gosh, those are the sorts of things a civilized nation should already have, even without horrific massacres persuading a few Republicans to talk about "mental health" instead of doing anything about guns.
As we noted last week, Republican negotiators created a lot of drama about the bill's support for red flag laws and the closure of the "boyfriend loophole," because what is a "recent" dating partner and how dare we keep stalkers from protecting themselves from Antifa? Politico explains the bill offers an out for first-time offenders if they keep their noses clean:
The legislation would change federal law so that if a person has a misdemeanor conviction for assaulting a dating partner or a recent former dating partner, they would be barred from purchasing a firearm. Under the deal, that person’s right to purchase a firearm would be reinstated after five years if he or she is not involved in any violent acts or felonies during that period. This would apply to people in this newly created category who are first-time offenders.
We'll see how that works in practice; if it turns out that guns are returned to people who then go on to kill former partners — which seems a real possibility — that may need revision. Haha, as if Congress will pass another gun law in the next 30 years. Also, as the New York Times points out, the prohibition on gun ownership for non-married abusers can't be applied retroactively, so only partners of recent or future abuse or stalking can dare a sigh of relief. Maybe it'll be of some comfort that bipartisan compromise is allegedly how great laws get passed.
The Times also notes that in addition to providing funding for new red flag laws — but not a federal one, so red states can continue to insist that taking away the guns of someone who has, say, threatened schoolchildren is tyranny and decline to instate them — the bill will also give grants to support
what Mr. Cornyn described as “crisis intervention programs,” including programs related to mental health courts, drug courts and veterans courts.
Still, it's a hell of a lot better than anything that's been passed since the last major gun law in this country, way back in 1994 when we first got the national background check law and the 10-year assault weapons ban that George W. Bush allowed to expire. Congress has nibbled around the provisions of the background system since then without making it significantly better, and it's still possible for people to sell used guns in private transactions without a background check.
As you'd expect, gunhumpers immediately whined that the very small changes to national gun laws would be unconstitutional and would "make gun owners second class citizens." Missouri candidate for US Senate Eric Greitens, who recently ran an ad fantasizing about hunting and murdering fellow Republicans, called it a "gun confiscation bill" and claimed it would be "one of the most anti-2A laws ever passed." Also, fuck that guy. Needless to say, the National Rifle Association condemned it as well.
Sen. Rick Scott (R-Florida), who as Florida governor supported a much more robust gun law following the 2018 massacre in Parkland, Florida (including a state red flag law), voted against the Senate bill because he still thinks he can be president some day.
Even so, the bill has the support of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who voted to advance it yesterday, so it's likely to pass before the July 4 recess, and then it should easily pass the House and be signed into law.
Like, unless five Senate Republicans suddenly decide to not vote for it and it's killed off by the filibuster. But what are the odds of a last-minute reversal by Republicans, huh?
[Politico / Texas Tribune / NYT]
Yr Wonkette is funded entirely by reader donations. If you can, please give $5 or $10 a month to help us keep this little mommyblog mommyblogging!
Kids Under Five FINALLY Getting A COVID Vax! Except In Florida, Because Ron DeSantis Is Why
Sucks to be you, Florida parents. Sucks to be you.
The FDA's independent vaccine advisory board voted on Wednesday to recommend approval of COVID vaccines from Moderna and from Pfizer-BioNTech for use in very young children. Both vaccines now just need emergency-use authorization from the FDA, and a final sign-off from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and then they can start being given to babies, toddlers, and preschoolers starting as early as next Tuesday.
Both vaccines can be given to babies as young as six months old. The two-dose Moderna vaccine will be approved for kids up to the age of six, and the three-dose Pfizer vaccine for kids up to five years. And finally virtually all age groups will be able to get a vaccine. States have already pre-ordered vaccines to make sure there'll be enough doses to meet demand; the federal government should start shipments Monday.
Or at least all states but Florida have pre-ordered the early-childhood doses of vaccine. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who has consistently opposed all sound medical advice in responding to the pandemic, because that plays well with the far-Right, confirmed Thursday that Florida will not be ordering any vaccines for young kids, so if parents want their kids vaccinated, they'll have to hope they can get the vaccine through clinics and pharmacies that receive them directly from the federal government.
"There is not going to be any state programs that are going to be trying to get COVID jabs to infants, toddlers, and newborns," the Republican governor said in response to a question asked at a press conference in Miami. [...] "That's not something that we think is appropriate and so that's not where we are going to be utilizing our resources."
In a remarkable show of good taste and restraint, DeSantis somehow avoided flipping the bird at parents of young children; nor did he shout "Let's go Brandon!" and smirk.
White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Florida's refusal to order vaccine doses will result in Florida parents having a harder time getting their young children vaccinated, compared to other states. It's not yet clear how long the delays in Florida are likely to be, however. Jean-Pierre noted that some pharmacies and community health centers will get vaccines directly from the federal government, although pharmacies will only be vaccinating kids aged three and up. Younger children would need to go to a pediatrician, and most doctors' offices have up until now relied on the state to distribute vaccines. Guess Ron DeSantis will teach them a lesson about what happens when you trust the government.
This certainly isn't the first time Florida has pursued health policies that appear to have been drafted by the actual SARS-CoV-2 virus itself. Early on, DeSantis appeared to play politics with vaccine distribution, with vaccines getting to rich, GOP-leaning communities before they reached poorer communities with higher infection rates. DeSantis recklessly banned schools from requiring face masks, then withheld salaries from school board members who voted to require masks. Last year, DeSantis appointed full-on crank Dr. Joseph Ladapo as state surgeon general, despite (or because of) Ladapo's habit of pushing misinformation about COVID.
Read More:
Judge Slaps Down DeSantis School Mask Ban Because Giving Kids COVID Is ... Bad Actually?
Ron DeSantis Flips Off Judge, Steals School Board Salaries In Mask Ban F***tussle
In Bold Move, Ron DeSantis Appoints Actual COVID Virus As Florida Surgeon General
Florida Surgeon General To Kids: Drop Dead
Continuing DeSantis's policy of promoting maximum liberty for Florida kids to become infected, Ladapo in March of this year declared that, counter to CDC recommendations, Florida would recommend that children aged five to 17 not be vaccinated unless they have "underlying conditions" that might put them at risk from COVID.
Again, children are not magically exempt from COVID, and cases of the disease in children spiked last winter when the Omicron variant surged. While COVID has mostly killed adults, especially older adults, it can be deadly to children — including babies, toddlers and preschoolers. CDC data show that nationwide, more than 2.5 million children aged zero to four have been infected with the virus, and 481 children in that age group have died from COVID.
Not that science is what's guiding Florida policy anyway. MAGA chuds hate disease prevention, and vaccines prevent disease, so Florida will not do anything that might increase vaccination rates.
In a statement to Insider about DeSantis's refusal to order vaccines for kids under six, the Florida Department of Health explained it
"has made it clear to the federal government that states do not need to be involved in the convoluted vaccine distribution process." It also said that Florida's decision not to participate should come at "no surprise" given that the department doesn't recommend shots for children.
"Doctors can order vaccines if they are in need, and there are currently no orders in the department's ordering system for the COVID-19 vaccine for this age group," the department said in an email that had no name attached.
DeSantis followed up his comments Thursday with reassurances that if parents want to get their young children vaccinated, they're still allowed to; he's just not going to do anything to move that process along.
"The state's recommendation holds: It's a recommendation against doing it," DeSantis said Thursday. "That's different than saying you can't. You are free to choose."
That should be a huge comfort to parents competing to get their kids connected with whatever vaccines actually do get shipped to Florida.
[Politico / Insider / DeSantis image: Gage Skidmore, Creative Commons License 2.0]
Yr Wonkette is funded entirely by reader donations. If you can, please give $5 or $10 a month so we can keep this little mommyblog going!
