#colorado ballot decision

[evilmark999]

Overall, the Roberts Supreme Court is very much conservative, very much elitist, and very much political. This holds true for the way that all entities with a conservative majority exist...

For those that don't know, the "concurrence" that the Supreme Court rushed out late over Colorado's removal from the ballot of Trump as an insurrectionist was undermined by a "dissent" that was changed in its metadata. Metadata which, by the way, the "mindful" court was too "mindless" to address in its haste:

Albeit dramatic, this definitely has the feel of a prisoner of war blinking in code that all is not well while being coerced by the majority to tell its nosy critics otherwise. How is that NOT political?

Are you still reading this?

The Roberts Court does not share what it does, does not comment on what it does, and does not believe that ANYONE should scrutinize what it does. In fact, when the Roe overturn was leaked in advance, the majority SCREAMED for the head of the leaker, because he or she was a low life criminal! I'm paraphrasing, so feel free to comment if you believe that I've somehow gotten this assessment wrong...

Supreme Court ethics have taken a HUGE amount of hits under Roberts' leadership. Even those who typically and emphatically defend the highest court's noble history and thinking are being compelled to couch their insights and commentary with "but" disclaimers...

And let's not forget that all four of the most recent seated justices outright lied about Roe to Congress and the watching public during their confirmation proceedings! Plus, there's that old Uncle Thomas up there, as well...

If it looks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, then guess what! More to the point, it's tyranny of the few in every aspect of governance, and it's aided and compounded by an uneducated populace who are devoid of critical thinking skills...

'Voters need to know' is why FBI released info about Hillary 11 days before 2016 election.

[amaditalks]

Abortion Is On The Ballot

In ten states, there are ballot measures or questions which will be decided in the November election which will impact the future of abortion access in those states. Here’s what you need to know.

Arizona

Arizona Proposition 139 the Right to Abortion Initiative will amend the state constitution to provide for the fundamental right to abortion that the state of Arizona may not interfere with before the point of fetal viability unless justified by a compelling state interest.

To enshrine abortion rights protection in the state constitution Vote Yes

Colorado

Colorado Amendment 79, the Right to Abortion and Health Insurance Coverage Initiative will amend the state constitution to create the right to an abortion and authorize the use of public funds (Medicaid) to pay for abortion care.

To enshrine abortion rights protection in the state constitution Vote Yes

Florida

Florida Amendment 4, the Right to Abortion Initiative, will amend the state constitution to declare that "no law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.” The current constitutional provision requiring parental consent for minors' abortions will not be affected.

To enshrine abortion rights protection in the state constitution and overturn the current six week abortion ban Vote Yes

Maryland

Maryland Question 1, the Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment, will amend the state constitution to establish a right to reproductive freedom, defined to include "the ability to make and effectuate decisions to prevent, continue, or end one's own pregnancy."

To enshrine reproductive rights protection in the state constitution Vote Yes

Missouri

Missouri Amendment 3, the Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative will amend the state constitution to provide the right for reproductive freedom, which is defined as "the right to make and carry out decisions about all matters relating to reproductive health care, including but not limited to prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, abortion care, miscarriage care, and respectful birthing conditions," and providing that the state legislature may enact laws that regulate abortion after fetal viability.

To enshrine broad reproductive rights protection including abortion in the state constitution and overturn the current complete abortion ban Vote Yes

Montana

Montana CI-128, the Right to Abortion Initiative will create a constitutional "right to make and carry out decisions about one’s own pregnancy, including the right to abortion," and allow the state to regulate abortion after fetal viability, except when "medically indicated to protect the life or health of the pregnant patient."

To enshrine broad reproductive rights protection including abortion in the state constitution Vote Yes

Nebraska

The Nebraska Prohibit Abortions After the First Trimester Amendment will amend the state constitution to elevate the current twelve week abortion ban law to a constitutional provision with limited exceptions for medical emergencies or in cases of rape.

To prevent the current legislative abortion ban from being enshrined in the state constitution Vote No

Nevada

Nevada Question 6, the Right to Abortion Initiative will amend the state constitution to create a constitutional right to an abortion, providing for the state to regulate abortion after fetal viability, except where medically indicated to "protect the life or health of the pregnant patient."

To enshrine abortion rights protection in the state constitution Vote Yes

New York

New York Proposal 1, the Equal Protection of Law Amendment will amend the state constitution to provide that people cannot be denied rights based on their "ethnicity, national origin, age, and disability" or "sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy."

To enshrine equal rights protection for pregnant people and abortion patients in the state constitution Vote Yes

South Dakota

The South Dakota Constitutional Amendment G, the Right to Abortion Initiative will amend the state constitution to protect the right to an abortion based on a trimester framework, with no restrictions permitted in the first trimester, only limited medical need restrictions permitted in the second trimester and allowing deeper restrictions in the third trimester except "when abortion is necessary, in the medical judgment of the woman's physician, to preserve the life and health of the pregnant woman."

To enshrine abortion rights protection in the state constitution and overturn the state's current full abortion ban Vote Yes

If you live in one of these ten states and abortion rights matter to you, get registered or double check your registration and make your voting plan today. Every single vote matters significantly in amendment questions.

[stevetoday]

Pro-Choice - Abortion Measures on The Ballot

Florida Amendment 4, the Right to Abortion Initiative A Yes vote with 60% will Establish a constitutional right to abortion until viability, with exceptions for later pregnancies. Arizona Proposition 139, Right to Abortion Initiative (2024) A "yes" vote supports amending the state constitution to provide for the fundamental right to abortion, among other provisions.

Colorado Amendment 79, Right to Abortion and Health Insurance Coverage Initiative A  "yes" vote supports creating a right to abortion in the state constitution and allowing the use of public funds for abortion. Maryland Question 1, Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment A "yes" vote supports adding a new article to the Maryland Constitution's Declaration of Rights establishing a right to reproductive freedom, defined to include "the ability to make and effectuate decisions to prevent, continue, or end one's own pregnancy."

Missouri Amendment 3, Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative A "yes" vote supports adding a fundamental right to reproductive freedom, defined to include abortion and “all matters relating to reproductive health care,” to the Missouri Constitution, among other provisions. Montana CI-128, Right to Abortion Initiative

provide a state constitutional "right to make and carry out decisions about one’s own pregnancy, including the right to abortion," and

allow the state to regulate abortion after fetal viability, except when "medically indicated to protect the life or health of the pregnant patient."

Nebraska Initiative 434, Prohibit Abortions After the First Trimester Amendment A "no" vote opposes amending the state constitution to prohibit abortions after the first trimester unless necessitated by a medical emergency or the pregnancy is a result of sexual assault or incest.

Nebraska Initiative 439, Right to Abortion Initiative A "yes" vote supports amending the state constitution to establish a right to abortion until fetal viability. Nevada Question 6, Right to Abortion Initiative A "yes" vote supports providing for a state constitutional right to an abortion, providing for the state to regulate abortion after fetal viability, except where medically indicated to "protect the life or health of the pregnant patient." New York Proposal 1, Equal Protection of Law Amendment A "yes" vote supports adding language to the New York Bill of Rights to provide that people cannot be denied rights based on their "ethnicity, national origin, age, and disability" or "sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy."

South Dakota Constitutional Amendment G, Right to Abortion Initiative A "yes" vote supports providing for a state constitutional right to abortion in South Dakota, using a trimester framework for regulation:

During the first trimester, the state would be prohibited from regulating a woman's decision to have an abortion;

During the second trimester, the state may regulate abortion, but "only in ways that are reasonably related to the physical health of the pregnant woman;" and

During the third trimester, the state may regulate or prohibit abortion, except "when abortion is necessary, in the medical judgment of the woman's physician, to preserve the life and health of the pregnant woman."

[destielmemenews]

"In a stunning and unprecedented decision, the Colorado Supreme Court removed former President Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 ballot, ruling that he isn’t an eligible presidential candidate because of the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban.”"

source 1

source 2

source 3

[probablyasocialecologist]

Americans in 10 US states voted on Tuesday on whether to enshrine the right to abortion into their state constitutions. In a major victory, Missouri voted to amend its state constitution to protect abortion rights – a move that sets the state up to become the first since the fall of Roe v Wade to overturn its near-total abortion ban. So too did voters in the swing state of Arizona, which approved a ballot measure that would establish a fundamental right to abortion and prohibit the state from restricting or banning abortion before 24 weeks – a victory for activists who sought to expand access beyond 15 weeks. Similar decisions in Montana – which enshrined a 1999 state supreme court ruling that said the constitutional right to privacy protects the right to a pre-viability abortion by a provider of the patient’s choice – and in Nevada, a presidential battleground state, added to the list of major wins for abortion rights supporters. Colorado, New York and Maryland also all passed measures to amend their state constitutions to protect abortion rights and cement the blue states’ status as abortion havens. However, in Florida, an effort to roll back a six-week ban fell short, as did another effort to expand protections in Nebraska. Before Tuesday, seven states had held abortion-related ballot referendums, and abortion rights supporters won all of them before Florida broke their streak. The results of Tuesday’s measures will not be the final word; states that vote to overturn bans will see litigation or legislation before those bans are repealed. But taken together, the results will indicate how potent the issue remains after two years without Roe. Results began rolling in with the announcement from Florida, but it could take days for a complete tally of all of the votes.

6 November 2024

[robertreich]

Are Presidents Above the Law? 

Donald Trump thinks presidents should be allowed to commit crimes. Rubbish.

Trump claims that quote, "A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES MUST HAVE FULL IMMUNITY” from prosecution for any crime committed while in office. His lawyers even claim that a president could be immune from prosecution for having a political opponent assassinated.

Trump says anything less than total immunity would quote, "incapacitate every future president." Baloney. It would incapacitate him! He’s the only president who's been criminally charged with trying to orchestrate a violent coup on January 6th, 2021.

Trump wants to turn the U.S. president into a supreme ruler — who is not bound to the same laws that everybody else is — the very antithesis of the bedrock values this country was founded on. A president shouldn’t be above the law.

In reality, this is all part of Trump’s plan to avoid accountability. He wants to gum up the legal system to delay his federal trial until after the 2024 election. If he really believed he was innocent, wouldn’t he want to have a trial as soon as possible?

Just as bad, the Supreme Court is abetting his plan by dragging its feet.

Trump’s criminal trial in the January 6 case was supposed to begin in March. But now, it’s on hold until Trump’s immunity claim is resolved by the Supreme Court. Who knows how long that will take?

The high court could have ruled on Trump’s immunity claim immediately — which Special Counsel Jack Smith asked it to do last December. Instead, the Supreme Court accepted Trump’s request not to expedite a ruling. Trump’s immunity claim then went slowly through the lower courts, which, not surprisingly, found that, no, presidents DO NOT have carte blanche to commit crimes.

The Supreme Court then had another chance to expedite a ruling on this, but it took weeks even to set a date for arguments.

The Supreme Court can move quickly when it wants to. When Trump appealed Colorado’s decision to keep him off the state ballot, the Supreme Court rushed to get a ruling out before the Colorado primary. Shouldn’t the court move with the same urgency on Trump’s immunity claim? Otherwise, Trump’s January 6th trial may not be decided before the presidential election.

Voters are entitled to know before casting their ballots whether they are choosing a felon for president.

[anistarrose]

Things To Know To Get Your Vote Counted — Non-Exhaustive List

[Plain text: "Things To Know To Get Your Vote Counted — Non-Exhaustive List."]

Post date: October 28, 2024. Contains information relevant to both in-person and absentee voting.

Same Day Voter Registration:

[Same Day Voter Registration:]

If you're not already registered to vote, over 20 states (and DC) allow you to register while you're at the polling place on election day (or for early voting). If you're making a last-second decision to vote, or you thought you were registered but found out you weren't, these states give you options up until (insert time the polls close) on November 5th.

[ID: map with states shaded where same-day registration is allowed in 2024. States that allow it are: California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. (North Carolina only allows it during early voting.) End ID.] (Source: Ballotpedia)

Alaska and Rhode Island only allow same-day registering voters to vote for president/vice president. North Carolina only allows same-day registration in the early voting period. Most states require an ID and/or proof of residency to register as usual — the Ballotpedia page is a good starting point for researching requirements in your own state.

Casting a Provisional Ballot:

[Casting a Provisional Ballot:]

Provisional ballots are cast by voters who can't prove they are eligible to vote at the polling place on Election Day. For example, if you:

don't have a photo ID on you, but it's required in your state?

requested an ID ballot, but had to vote in person because you didn't receive it?

changed your name or address, but it doesn't show up in the registration information?

have your eligibility challenged by a poll worker for any reason?

Then you should ask for a provisional ballot. Moreover, federal law requires election officials to offer voters a way of tracking whether their vote was counted. Many states have online provisional ballot trackers.

Provisional ballots are used in all states except for Idaho and Minnesota. To learn more about your specific state, I recommend the National Conference of State Legislatures (archive link if the site is down).

Tracking Your Ballot and Curing Signatures:

[Tracking Your Ballot and Curing Signatures:]

In addition to provisional ballots, if you've submitted an absentee ballot, Vote.org compiles ballot trackers to ensure your ballot is received — the vast majority of states have an online version.

Moreover, if voting absentee, familiarize yourself with your state's cure period for signature errors, and be on the lookout for communication in case your signature is found not to match. 33 states require some kind of notification and ballot-curing process — which means that if your ballot is rejected, you have a chance to fix it, albeit most likely needing to appear in person.

Be Careful About Phones, Ballot Selfies, Political Clothing:

[Be Careful About Phones, Ballot Selfies, Political Clothing:]

Many states disallow taking pictures of your ballot, and even some of the states listed as "allowing" it only do so under specific conditions (ex: your face isn't in the photo, the photo isn't taken at the polling place, et cetera). Moreover, several states go even further, and ban phones at the polling place altogether. Nevada, Maryland, and Texas are the states I'm aware of, but there may be more.

Also, at least 21 states ban political apparel or buttons in polling places. Regarding both apparel and phones, it is also possible that cities could set their own rules, so you should err on the side of caution unless you know for a fact what's allowed and what isn't.

Responding to Voter Intimidation:

[Responding to Voter Intimidation:]

866-Our-Vote (866-687-8683) is a hotline you can contact, which will help connect you with lawyers and federal investigators. Their website also lists hotlines in Spanish, Arabic, and some East & Southeast Asian languages. If you witness or experience a civil rights violation, you should write down your account for future reference, contact the DOJ Civil Rights Division, and possibly also a local ACLU division.

Other Information:

[Other Information:]

Getting time off work to vote, state-by-state

State election department contact information

Vote411 (voting law information & candidate information)

If anyone notices an error or broken link in this post, please let me know so I can correct it. If anyone would like to add on information in the notes, please do so — especially if it's specific to your state! Please just include a source if possible, and present the information as accessibly as you can. Overall, good luck out there.

[truth-has-a-liberal-bias]

A Colorado judge has rejected an attempt to remove former President Donald Trump from the state’s 2024 primary ballot based on the claim that he is constitutionally barred from office because of the January 6, 2021, insurrection.

The major decision issued Friday by Colorado District Judge Sarah Wallace comes after judges in Minnesota and Michigan also refused to remove Trump from that state’s Republican primary ballots.

These three high-profile challenges against Trump, which had the backing of well-funded advocacy groups, have so far failed to remove him from a single ballot, with the 2024 primary season fast approaching.

Wallace said she was keeping the former president on the ballot because the 14th Amendment’s “insurrectionist ban” does not apply to presidents, though she found that “Trump engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 through incitement, and that the First Amendment does not protect Trump’s speech.” [...]

***

"DOES NOT APPLY TO PRESIDENTS"

[wilwheaton]

Yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling that keeps Trump on the ballot in Colorado was expected. All that remained to be seen was how they did it. And they did it in a way that renders the Disqualification Clause a dead letter. Unlike some observers, I didn’t think this was an easy call, with an obvious outcome that the conservative supermajority simply ignored. The ruling makes good points. This is a complicated issue. But the concurrence by the three liberal justices rightly notes that the majority decision creates an absurd result: Under the Disqualification Clause, it takes a two-thirds vote of Congress to remove the disability, but under the ruling a majority of Congress can wipe away the constitutional provision entirely. It’s actually worse than that. Any one chamber can nullify the Disqualification Clause. In the Senate, it can be nullified by the filibuster. In fact, it can be nullified by mere inaction. No enabling legislation? No Disqualification Clause. It is, in the words of the concurrence, a “special rule” carved out “to insulate this Court and petitioner from future controversy.”

In The Winter Of Our Trump Discontent, Things Look Bleak

[cryoverkiltmilk]

The Colorado Supreme Court just voted in a 4-3 decision to bar Trump from the state ballot. Buckle up fuckaroos, things are about to get wild. This can be appealed to the Supreme Court, which last year's rotting halloween pumpkin's campaign has already announced they will do, but it's possible they could either not take the case or that they could agree with the state's ruling (less likely). Either way, this establishes precedent as a ruling in which Trump was found to be disqualified under sec. 3 of the 14th Amendment, having "engaged in insurrection or rebellion", "or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

And here you can enjoy my two favorite twitter moments so far.

[reality-detective]

Rep. Jim Jordan joins John Roberts to share the evidence the House GOP says they have against Biden for impeachment.

Plus, he predicts whether the Supreme Court will take up the Colorado court decision to disqualify President Trump from the ballot. 🤔

[feminismisstillahatemovement]

Three Republican state lawmakers are drafting legislation to remove President Joe Biden from ballots in Georgia, Arizona, and Pennsylvania, Breitbart News exclusively learned Friday.

The three state representatives who are drafting the three bills are:

Pennsylvania Rep. Aaron Bernstine (R)

Georgia Rep. Charlice Byrd (R)

Arizona Rep. Cory Mcgarr (R)

The state representatives’ aim is to fight back against the Democrats’ so-called “lawfare” used to attack former President Donald Trump. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in a 4-3 opinion that the United States Constitution’s “Insurrection Clause” blocks Trump from appearing on the state’s presidential ballot.

“We are joining forces to introduce legislation to REMOVE Joe Biden from the ballot in Georgia, Arizona, and Pennsylvania,” the lawmakers told Breitbart News. “The absurdity of radical Democrat judges removing Donald Trump from the ballot in Colorado will be a stain on the American political system for decades. By their very own interpretation of the law, Joe Biden is 100% not eligible to run for political office.”

“Democrats’ insane justification to remove Trump can just as easily be applied to Joe Biden for his ‘insurrection’ at the southern border and his alleged corrupt family business dealings with China,” they continued.

“Colorado radicals just changed the game and we are not going to sit quietly while they destroy our Republic. To be clear, our objective is to showcase the absurdity of Colorado’s decision and allow ALL candidates to be on the ballot in all states,” they wrote. “To do that, we must fight back as Republicans against the communists currently running our great country.”

Republicans were immediately incensed by the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision. Many floated ideas to block Biden from various state ballots. Texas Republicans threatened to take action predicated on the Biden administration’s open border policies, but no action was taken.

“While GOP elites are asleep at the wheel, the Democrats are very serious about destroying the American Republic,” political strategist Cliff Maloney told Breitbart News. “Thank God for patriots like Aaron Bernstine, Charlice Byrd, and Cory McGarr for stepping up to FIGHT back.”

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Reading the headlines over the last couple of days, you would think the biggest political story about this election is Trump’s pathetic attempt to challenge Vice President Kamala Harris on the size of her rally crowds.  Look at this Truth Social post!  Trump says she used AI to create fake photos of her crowd at an airport in Detroit!  There was even a story in my newsfeed from a polling expert pointing out that you cannot calculate support for a candidate by crowd size.  If crowd size were what mattered, Bernie Sanders would be president by now, he reminded us.

Political narratives are strange beasts – at least they were until Trump came along and made them even stranger.  It used to be that fights over policies and personalities and the pasts of politicians drove elections.  When John Kerry ran in 2006, Republicans took his war record in the Navy in Vietnam and “Swift-boated” him by twisting his service into something it wasn’t.  They’re trying to do the same thing with Tim Walz right now, creating a fake story that he was somehow derelict in his duty when he retired from 24 years of service in the National Guard to run for congress not long before his unit in Minnesota was deployed to Iraq.

Then Trump showed up and proved that you can do it using lies alone.  That’s what his ridiculous story that Kamala Harris is using AI to fake her crowd size was.  Trump proved that if you tell enough lies again and again and again, something will stick, and then you can run with it. 

You will notice in the above paragraphs that the political narratives I gave as examples were all driven by men:  Men running for office; men’s careers being dissected and put on display; men using lies and misinformation to create stories about each other where there really aren’t any.  Even the political narrative about Hillary Clinton during her presidential run in 2016 was created by men:  Roger Stone interfacing with Guccifer II to get Hillary’s emails leaked to the press; Trump taking the fake “issue” about “her emails” and making it a central feature of his campaign.

But this week, a campaign narrative driven by women entered the picture in a big way.  On Monday, Arizona election officials announced that they had received enough signatures on petitions – in fact 50 percent more than was required – to put access to abortion on the ballot in November.  On Tuesday, Missouri officials certified enough petition signatures to allow a measure on the November ballot that would enshrine the right to abortion in the state’s constitution.

Both of these things are a big, big deal.  The drives to collect enough signatures to get the referendum measures on the Arizona and Missouri ballots were run by women.  Referendums on abortion have already been approved for a November vote in Florida, Nevada, Colorado, and South Dakota.  Petitions have been submitted in Nebraska and Montana for similar abortion ballot measures and await approval by election officials.  State constitutional amendments will be on the ballot in New York and Maryland that will guarantee access to abortion as well.  The New York Times reminded us in a story today that ballot measures guaranteeing a right to abortion have passed in all seven states where they have been put to a vote since Roe v Wade was overturned in 2022.  The red states of Kentucky and Kansas were among the states that passed abortion rights measures by referendum. 

Arizona and Nevada are crucial battleground states in the presidential election that will be decided in November.  Having the issue of abortion on the ballot alongside the decision to vote for either Kamala Harris or Donald Trump, who brags about having appointed three of the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe, is expected to help Democrats from Vice President Harris on down the ballot, including pivotal races that will determine control of the House and the Senate next year.

Abortion is not just a so-called “women’s issue.”  Until two years ago, the right to abortion was embedded in the language of the 14th Amendment which guarantees equal protection of the laws for all.  It was part of the central argument that established a right to privacy in Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965, which involved the right of couples to use birth control.  The fight over abortion rights, often framed as the right of a woman to control her own body, also involves the right to privacy for all of us.  Right wing lawsuit-factories such as the Alliance Defending Freedom have already stated their intention to sue to overturn Griswold, as well as other Supreme Court decisions based on the 14th Amendment involving same sex marriage and the right to love whoever you want in any way you want in the privacy of your bedroom.

With Kamala Harris running for president, Democrats will have the opportunity to emphasize that so-called kitchen table issues such as inflation and taxes are also women’s issues because our candidate is a woman, and that is a good thing.  It is definitely a good thing that abortion will be on the ballot in at least two key swing states, and it's even better thing that the person driving the political narrative for the Democratic Party this year is a woman. 

[deadpresidents]

Maine only has four electoral votes, but unlike Colorado, Trump did win a portion of Maine's electoral votes in both 2016 and 2020. Because of how close most Presidential elections have been this century, every single vote in the Electoral College is extremely important. And as more states move to disqualify Trump from the ballot, the Supreme Court should act more quickly to consider whether or not these disqualifications should stand. The Court needs to start working on clarifying a lot of Constitutional questions that have never been tested in the United States because the election season is underway and we're going to end up in a very dangerous place if a twice-impeached insurrectionist with a rabid personality cult built around him, who is charged with 91 felony counts under indictments in four separate criminal trials and is openly speaking about being a dictator and getting revenge on his enemies, quickly wraps up a major political party's Presidential nomination.

[mariacallous]

Abortion is a top issue in the 2024 election, with a “growing share of voters in swing states now say[ing] abortion is central to their decision this fall,” according to Times/Siena College polls published in August. It is the “single most important issue” for women under 45.

On September 3, Vice President Kamala Harris began a “Fighting for Reproductive Freedom” bus tour in Florida, a state the Democratic Party has lost in the last two presidential elections, but which has abortion on the ballot this year. On November 5, citizens of Florida will be able to vote on an amendment that would restore legal access to abortion “before viability or when necessary to protect a patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.” Florida currently has a six-week abortion ban, a law signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis in the wake of Dobbs.

The Harris bus tour began about a twenty-minute drive from Mar-a-Lago, the home of the former president who has declared responsibility for the fall of Roe under the Dobbs decision. The decision spawned multiple state abortion bans with severe repercussions upon a woman’s ability in ban states to receive critical or life-saving health care that may necessarily involve an abortion. At the September 10 presidential debate, Harris directly spoke to the post-Roe experiences of women suffering miscarriages and bleeding out in hospital parking lots because they couldn’t get treatment from doctors who were afraid of being prosecuted.

The other presidential candidate, former president Donald Trump, has bragged about overturning Roe v. Wade as a personal achievement of consummate importance. Public opinion polling shows, however, that the majority of Americans support legalized abortion. Moreover, the pro-reproductive rights position has won on abortion-related ballot measures following the Dobbs decision in conservative states like Ohio, Kansas, and Kentucky, and abortion measures are on the ballot this November in key states like Florida, Nevada, Colorado, and Arizona. Trump is now trying to downplay his involvement because the issue of abortion has become an albatross around the neck of the Trump campaign and the Republican Party itself. No wonder, then, in recent comments Trump has stated that abortion policy should be left to the states, and he has been publicly unwilling to endorse a nationwide abortion ban. At the debate, however, he repeatedly refused to answer whether he would veto legislation containing such a ban if it were presented to him as president, rejecting the question as an unlikely hypothetical while claiming he did the country “a great service” by helping overturn Roe.

In the wake of threats to in vitro fertilization (IVF) spurred by the Alabama Supreme Court decision that frozen embryos are children and the corresponding religious view held by some in the anti-abortion movement that a fertilized egg is a full-fledged person, Trump said both that he would mandate insurance companies cover IVF and the federal government would cover it for all Americans in need.

Attempting to persuade women who want their reproductive rights back, he suggested that Florida’s six-week abortion ban is “too short,” stating that he will be “voting that we need more than six weeks.” Later, however, his campaign walked this statement back, indicating that he “has not yet said how he will vote on the ballot initiative in Florida.” Trump attempted to rehabilitate his position on abortion further for his far right, evangelical base by spreading the disinformation that some states allow the legal execution of babies after birth. At the debate, he repeated this false statement, and one of the debate moderators fact-checked him on that. These are just a few examples of the ducking, bobbing, and weaving on abortion that Trump has been doing over the past few weeks. 

But Trump’s attempts to obfuscate the abortion policy of his party and his future administration are laid bare by what is stated in the 2024 Republican Party platform and in the 2025 Presidential Transition Project (also known as Project 2025), a detailed blueprint for overhauling the executive branch, published by the Heritage Foundation, which involves at least 140 people who worked in the last Trump administration.

The word “abortion” only appears once in the 28-page Republican Party platform with the statement “[w]e will oppose Late Term Abortion, while supporting mothers and policies that advance Prenatal Care, access to Birth Control, and IVF.” But that statement must be understood in the context of the sentence that immediately precedes it: “We believe that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees that no person can be denied Life or Liberty without Due Process, and that the States are, therefore, free to pass Laws protecting those Rights.” By invoking the 14th Amendment to the Constitution in the context of abortion, the platform projects consistency with a religious belief that fertilized eggs, or so-called “unborn children” are full-fledged people deserving all of the rights and protections afforded by the U.S. Constitution. Neither abortion nor IVF, where some embryos may be discarded, is consistent with this “personhood” view. The limited and coded treatment of abortion in the platform is, however, consistent with Trump’s stated belief that the issue is harming the Republican Party and his candidacy with women.

But the Republican Party platform’s concise treatment of abortion should not be separated from Project 2025—a 922-page document replete with instances of the word abortion, along with detailed plans for how a Republican administration should promote “pro-life” policies and, in doing so, further curtail reproductive rights and access to reproductive healthcare.

Project 2025’s explicit anti-abortion positions and goals are summarized in the forward section of the document, which proclaims that “conservatives should gratefully celebrate the greatest pro-family win in a generation: overturning Roe v. Wade, a decision that for five decades made a mockery of our Constitution and facilitated the deaths of tens of millions of unborn children. But the Dobbs decision is just the beginning.”

A national abortion ban emerges as a prominent goal, as the document instructs that “[c]onservatives in the states and in Washington, including in the next conservative Administration, should push as hard as possible to protect the unborn in every jurisdiction in America. In particular, the next conservative President should work with Congress to enact the most robust protections for the unborn that Congress will support . . . .”

Some of the most noteworthy ideas and policies construed to achieve these outcomes presented in the rest of the document include:

A series of actions focused on preventing access to medication abortion nationwide. It is important to recognize that medication abortion accounted for 63% of all abortions in 2023—and that number does not account for pills that were mailed to people in states with an abortion ban, so the overall percentage is likely higher. It can be a particularly useful way to circumvent abortion bans. From the perspective of Project 2025, “[a]bortion pills pose the single greatest threat to unborn children in a post-Roe world.” Accordingly, Project 2025 recommends, among other things, that the FDA “reverse its approval of chemical abortion drugs,” and “stop promoting or approving mail-order abortions.” It also recommends that the DOJ “enforce the Comstock Act,” a law passed in 1873 that would, if read literally, make the mailing of any kind of abortifacient unlawful, effectively resulting in a nationwide ban on medication abortion.

Preventing both HHS and the CDC from treating or promoting abortion as health care. Consistent with this goal, and in furtherance of a “Life Agenda,” Project 2025 states that HHS should be known as the “Department of Life” through “explicitly rejecting the notion that abortion is health care.” Accordingly, Project 2025 recommends that the next Secretary of HHS eliminate the current HHS Reproductive Access Task Force and replace it with “a pro-life task force to ensure that all of the department’s divisions seek to use their authority to promote the life and health of women and their unborn children.” With respect to the CDC, Project 2025 recommends that it “should eliminate programs and projects that do not respect human life and conscious rights and that undermine family formation.” This would include the types of research it chooses to fund.

Preventing any kind of federal funding from supporting abortion care, including helping women travel out of state to receive an abortion. Project 2025 would also prohibit Planned Parenthood or any other abortion provider from receiving Medicaid funds. Two steps recommended in furtherance of this goal are having HHS “[i]ssue guidance reemphasizing that states are free to defund Planned Parenthood in their state Medicaid plans” and “[p]ropose rulemaking to interpret the Medicaid statute to disqualify providers of elective abortion from the Medicaid program.”

In stark contrast, the Democratic Party platform, written when President Biden was still the Democratic candidate for president, has its own section on “Reproductive Freedom” that embraces the idea that abortion is health care. It begins by acknowledging that since the fall of Roe, “more than 20 states have imposed extreme and dangerous abortion bans—many of which include no exception even for rape or incest—that put the health and lives of women in jeopardy, force women to travel hundreds of miles for care, and threaten to criminalize doctors for providing the health care that their patients need and that they are trained to provide.”

The platform looks to the range of actions taken during the Biden-Harris administration as a foundation for continuing efforts to protect reproductive rights and health care. Some of the most notable actions mentioned, which are opposite of the policies promoted by Project 2025, include enabling pharmacies to dispense medication abortion and defending FDA approval of medication abortion in court, expanding reproductive health care for service members and veterans, defending access to emergency abortion care, challenging threats by a Republican attorney general to prosecute those who assist women traveling out of state for abortion care, and assisting states in expanding access under Medicaid for people who travel from states where they are denied access to abortion care.

Going forward, the platform states that Democrats will, among other things, work to restore abortion rights through legislation (assuming a Congress with sufficient Democratic control), protect the right to access IVF, strengthen access to contraception, and continue to support access to medication abortion. The platform also indicates that Democrats will work to repeal the Hyde amendment, which “restricts federally funded abortions under major federal health care programs.”

The contrast between the parties’ platforms and policies is clear. Simply put, the Democratic Party platform explicitly states that “President Biden, Vice President Harris, and Democrats are committed to restoring the reproductive rights Trump ripped away.” As the presidential candidate who has proudly claimed responsibility for the fall of Roe, Trump’s rhetoric resembles the defensive moves of a boxer ducking, bobbing, and weaving to slip an opponent’s punches: he has tried to disavow Project 2025, tried to obfuscate Republican Party positions and plans, and backtracked on some of his positions in an attempt to portray his future administration as “great for women and their reproductive rights.”

[odinsblog]

“Days like today are the whole reason right-wing billionaires have spent years, and billions of dollars, rigging the Supreme Court.”

The linked article from the tweet goes in depth exploring Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and the constitutionality of whether or not it is appropriate to use the Insurrection Clause against Trump. But that analysis completely misses the point: Ginni Thomas was (and still is) herself an integral part of the January 6th Insurrection, and as such, Clarence Thomas should not be allowed to rule on the case. In a just world, Clarence Thomas would recuse himself, or there would be some mechanism to force his recusal.

At any rate, prepare to be disappointed. I listened to the arguments live, and it sure sounds like even the “liberal” justices were in agreement with the conservatives appointed by Trump; that Colorado overstepped its authority — I vehemently disagree with that. In light of Trump’s words + actions leading up to the Insurrection, Colorado absolutely made the right call. Republicans always like to whine about “states rights” until they don’t like what the state wants to do, like protecting a person’s right to choose abortion.

That all said, begrudgingly, I dO understand the “why” behind what I think their decision will be: imagine an America where the so-called “former” Confederate States of the south were routinely removing the Democratic candidates from their state ballots. Not that this Colorado decision will stop them from trying to do so anyway, but that would be total anarchy (and not the good kind).

On the bright side, if Colorado loses this case, as I think they will, there is still enough time left for them to remove Trump from their ballot but this time, proactively use whatever arguments SCOTUS used against them. But admittedly, that’s a long shot.

Bringing it back home though, the ever germane question isn’t if Colorado was right - the relevant question here is if Clarence Thomas should have recused himself. In a more just timeline, he and other biased justices would willingly recuse themselves or be forcibly removed from cases where they have obvious conflicts of interest. Almost every consideration after the question of recusal is irrelevant.