The Democratic Party in Wisconsin: Making Up for the Supreme Court Decision to Remain Prohibited from a Birthright Right Roots Voting Rights

Rove was the architect of ballot initiatives to ban gay marriage placed in swing states to boost turnout for George W. Bush. The backlash to the Supreme Court decision last year has spurred Democrats to push ballot measures in an effort to make up for it.

“In 2024, voters will be deciding whether to elect people who want a national abortion ban,” said Ben Wikler, the Democratic Party chair in the state. “Republicans nationally will feel the fury that Wisconsin feels now.”

This long-brewing judicial clash comes just days after voters in Wisconsin flipped a state Supreme Court seat, and control of the bench, to favor liberals in a historically expensive election that largely hinged on the future of abortion rights in the state – and as political leaders in swing states around the country calculate its implications ahead of the 2024 elections.

Some in the party continue to push for economic issues to be their preeminent message. Top Democratic operatives say they will try to tie every Republican candidate to the strictest abortion restrictions, which polls show are unpopular, even if they win the presidency.

And they’ll do it, they say, by tapping into what they think is a more widely resonant argument about bringing people together to push back on government overreach and stripping them of their rights.

As they wait for Biden to make a final decision about running and setting the tone for a national campaign, the patchwork of ballot initiatives are part of a strategy that includes groups of activists, advocates and operatives. More than 20 lieutenant governors, for example, led by Connecticut’s Susan Bysiewicz, have started a coalition to share tactics and information as they push to protect abortion rights in their states. There are a group of Democratic attorneys general trying to undermine a possible decision by the Texas judge against the abortion pill.

In New York, which has six Republican congressional districts that Biden won in 2020, the Democratic legislature has already put a measure on the ballot for next year. Maryland legislators moved to add their own proposal to the 2024 ballot at the end of March.

Hochul, a Democrat who convened a special session of the state legislature last year after the Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade, said that even though abortion rights didn’t appear to move many voters in her very blue state last year, there’s still a need for abortion rights politicians to push for more.

A spokeswoman for the billionaire governor said that in the past he supported ballot proposition efforts in Michigan and Wisconsin, which was why they were asked if he would be funding them.

Nationally, Biden advisers say that Vice President Kamala Harris will take the lead on the abortion issue – as she did in the 2022 midterms – in the plans for a reelection campaign while the president would also push to codify Roe v. Wade as part of his own pitch.

According to aides, Harris has reached out to legislators in her state who protect abortion rights in order to warn them about the consequences of reversal of the FDA approval.

In her meeting with the Iowa state legislators who support abortion rights in Des Moines she said, “People around our country are concerned, afraid, confused, desperate, and feeling alone.”

Nevada Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, a Democrat who survived a tight reelection last year in which she spoke often about abortion rights, argues that the way to appeal to Republican voters and independents is to talk about how the GOP is being taken over by extremists.

It’s such an important issue for people that the far right doesn’t seem to understand why it continues to connect with them.

“We continue to see a lot of promise in appealing directly to voters who are so with us on this on the issue,” said ACLU senior political strategist Carolyn Ehrlich, arguing the ballot propositions from last year are “a roadmap for protecting rights in states where the legislature is a roadblock to progress.”

“I don’t think we’re going to have to nuance anything to voters. In order to communicate to voters where the parties are, we will need to do that, according to the president of the list.

“Every single candidate for public office next year will have no choice but to go on the record with their position, and we’ll be there to hold them accountable or lift them up,” Timmaraju said.

Former Vice President Mike Pence was a supporter of a national abortion ban. Other prospective candidates have not followed the lead of Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, who called for a 15-week ban in his state only for rape, incest and the health of the mother: as he eyes a moderate lane in the race. She supports the 15-week federal ban on most abortions but wouldn’t necessarily support a full federal ban, though she has expressed openness to it.

Fellow South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, asked on Fox News earlier this month about the bill in his state that would allow the death penalty to be imposed on women who receive abortions, said it was “a terrible idea” and then quickly shut down the conversation. A spokesperson for Scott, whose travel schedule in recent months has looked like that of a likely presidential candidate, did not respond to a CNN interview request to elaborate.

In the last congress, 167 House Republicans co-sponsored the LIFE at BUBBLE Act that granted full personhood rights to fertilized eggs. The R.N.C. suggests that the Legislature use every tool at their disposal to force people to have abortions if they do not want to. Idaho, where almost all abortions are illegal, just passed an “abortion trafficking” law that would make helping a minor leave the state to get an abortion without parental consent punishable by five years in prison. The Texas Senate recently passed a bill that will make prosecutors in left-leaning cities more likely to pursue abortion law violations. South Carolina Republicans have proposed a law defining abortion as murder, making it punishable by the death penalty.

The Attorney General of the State of Idaho’s Proposed Abortion Law, Revised by a New Law Enforcement Action, is “Unprecedented”

That applies for candidates for other offices too, Dannenfelser warned. And, she said, she wants candidates speaking loudly and clearly about more restrictions they’d support rather than trying to avoid the issue. To do otherwise, she said, would be an “ostrich strategy.”

In Florida, the governor is expected to soon sign a law prohibiting most abortions at six weeks. This isn’t something Florida voters want — polls show a majority of them support abortion rights — but it’s a virtual prerequisite for his likely presidential campaign.

On Friday the attorney general said he is no longer analyzing the legality of Idaho’s abortion ban after being hit with a lawsuit.

Attorney General Raúl Labrador said a letter from his office had been “mischaracterized as law enforcement guidance sent out publicly to local prosecutors and others.”

He withdrew it because it was not a guidelines document nor published by the attorney general’s office.

“Labrador’s interpretation is unprecedented and amounts to a clear threat that Idaho will seek to punish individuals for speech and conduct related to abortions that take place in states where abortion is legal,” the lawsuit states.

The letter on Friday injected new uncertainty into the situation, as to whether the lawsuit filed on Tuesday by people in different parts of the country will continue.

Judge Winmill stated on Friday that the withdrawal suggested that the motion for a temporary restraining order was no longer necessary.

The attorney general’s new letter makes the March 27 letter he wrote seem like it was never written, Brian Church told the judge.

Mr. Church was careful in what he said and what he didn’t say. And the thing that he didn’t say is, ‘If your clients continue to make referrals you don’t have to worry that they could face enforcement action,’ right? He didn’t say that,” said Peter Neiman, one of the attorneys representing Planned Parenthood and the two doctors.

We might get to a point where there is no emergency. He said that he has doctors who are not sure if they can do a complete, accurate and fair job of telling patients what their options are, without facing personal risk.

The High-Casino Case is Going to the High Court: A High-Dimensional Court-Instance Appellate Action against Misoprostol

Instead, the judge wrote that a ruling in the challengers’ favor would ensure “that women and girls are protected from unnecessary harm and that Defendants do not disregard federal law.”

The plaintiffs will now decide whether they want to continue seeking emergency relief from the court or to let the lawsuit play out on a normal timeline, with their decision on that likely to be made in the coming weeks.

Kacsmaryk’s opinion paid no heed to the argument made by the FDA’s defenders that cutting off access to medication abortion would put the health of pregnant people at risk and that it would force abortion seekers to terminate their pregnancies through a surgical procedure instead.

A pair of conflicting federal court rulings on Friday created arguably the most contentious and chaotic legal flashpoint over abortion access since the Supreme Court’s ruling last summer that overturned Roe v. Wade and ended the right to an abortion nationwide.

The decision comes three weeks after Kacsmaryk held a hearing in Amarillo in a courtroom that had room for only a few dozen members of the public and the press. There was no public livestreaming allowed.

An appeal will be taken to the Fifth Circuit which has a reputation for being conservative. The case could go to the Supreme Court.

Abortion providers nationwide say they’ve been preparing to rely on another medication abortion regimen using misoprostol alone. Misoprostol is prescribed primarily for ulcers, and is already widely used off-label for other gynecological purposes in the United States.

The single-drug regimen may be less effective and cause additional side effects, according to research. The method has been used internationally for decades and can be safe, according to the World Health Organization.

The Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson: Implications for abortion rights and medicine, and a conflict between FDA and the U.S. Supreme Court

The reproductive rights legal advocacy group says the decision will mean uncertainty for doctors and patients. If/When/How.

“People who are seeking an abortion with pills … are going to find it much more difficult to do so, especially in the time period as providers figure out what they’re going to be able to do,” she says. “So I think we’re going to see an immediate exacerbation of the crisis of access that already started in June of 2022” with the U.S. Supreme Court decision last year in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned decades of abortion-rights precedent.

Diaz-Tello predicts more people will look to induce their own abortions without medical supervision, using medications obtained online or in other countries. She worries about the risk of increased scrutiny for patients who are seeking medical care for abortions or miscarriages.

She is not certain if there is a state law that requires healthcare providers to turn in patients suspected of inducing an abortion.

“I am worried that … that is going to translate into a misunderstanding that is going to lead to the criminalization of people who end their pregnancies,” Diaz-Tello says.

Vice President Harris said the decision threatens the rights of women to make health care decisions and access medication from their doctors. “Simply put: this decision undermines the FDA’s ability to approve safe and effective medications—from chemotherapy drugs, to asthma medicine, to blood pressure pills, to insulin—based on science, not politics.”

Allen says that the FDA could make guidance about how to interpret the rulings. But she says such a conflict between the federal courts might well end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court’s decision to revoke the FDA ban on (Mifepristone) is a fling in the face of scientific facts

“(Mifepristone) has been used for over 20 years by over 5 million people with the capacity to become pregnant,” said Ushma Upadhyay, an associate professor in the department of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive science at the University of California, San Francisco. “Its safety is very well established.”

Comparatively, the risk of death by penicillin — a common antibiotic used to treat bacterial infections like pneumonia — is four times greater than it is for mifepristone, according to a study on life-threatening allergic reactions. Risk of death by taking Viagra — used to treat erectile dysfunction — is nearly 10 times greater, according to a study cited in the amicus brief filed by the FDA.

He decided not to grant the request from the Democratic states to remove some of the drug restrictions at this early stage in the proceedings because it would go beyond maintaining the status quo while the case progresses. The new FDA rule allowing pharmacies to sell abortion pills was undone if he had granted that request. That would make it harder for people to get it and would run directly counter to the request.

The Supreme Court ruling on abortion and the ensuing political environment led to the creation of both cases. The abortion issue is going to be argued before the Supreme Court, as they try to sort out the conflicting commands of Friday night’s decisions.

Jack Res neck said that Kacsmaryk’s ruling threatened to upend access to a safe and effective drug and that it flies in the face of science.

Kacsmaryk, whose anti-abortion advocacy before joining the federal bench was documented by a recent Washington Post profile, showed a striking hostility to medication abortion, which is the method used in a majority of the abortions in the United States.

He said the FDA refused to impose some restrictions on the drug’s use resulting in many deaths and more serious adverse reactions.

“Whatever the numbers are, they likely would be considerably lower had FDA not acquiesced to the pressure to increase access to chemical abortion at the expense of women’s safety,” he said.

“The court’s disregard for well-established scientific facts in favor of speculative allegations and ideological assertions will cause harm to our patients and undermines the health of the nation,” the AMA president said.

As he explained why the preliminary injunction – which was being handed down before the case could proceed to a trial – was justified, he said that embryos had their own rights that could be part of the analysis. That claim goes farther away than the Supreme Court said in its June ruling.

“Parenthetically, said ‘individual justice’ and ‘irreparable injury’ analysis also arguably applies to the unborn humans extinguished by mifepristone — especially in the post-Dobbs era,” Kacsmaryk said Friday.

They had asked Rice to remove certain restrictions – known as REMS or Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy – the FDA has imposed on mifepristone, with the blue states arguing the drug was safe and effective enough to make those restrictions unnecessary.

While Rice is rejecting that bid for now, he granted a request the states also made that the FDA be ordered to keep the drugs on the market. Rice only applies to 17 states and the District of Columbia.

There could be a direct conflict when it comes to the decision of the Washington state supreme court, according to an attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom. “But if there is a direct conflict then there may be – it may be inevitably going to the Supreme Court, but I’m not convinced that it’s necessary at this point to make that conclusion.”

On Friday evening, Democrats and allied abortion advocates quickly lashed out at the Amarillo-based Texas court and a judge that the plaintiffs, led by an anti-abortion group, sought because of his previously stated opposition to abortion rights.

Dobbs intended for abortion laws to be left to the states. Republican judges are making decisions for everyone in the country. Danielle Deiseroth, interim executive director of data for progress, said it will motivate voters who are not familiar with the effects of anti-abortion rulings.

The attorney general of Oregon said her office was reviewing the orders and that the fight over abortion was only just beginning.

“Don’t be too distracted by the breaking news out of Texas – we got a BIG WIN in the case led by Oregon and Washington (and joined by 16 other states),” Rosenblum tweeted. “The federal judge in the eastern district of Washington JUST granted our request to preserve access to Mifepristone pending the outcome of our case.”

In her victory speech, Protasiewicz said that her state was taking a step forward and that her rights and freedoms would be protected.

Dobbs and the Affordable Care Act: A Case Study of the Texas Aomalous Proton Decay ruling in the U.S.

The Texas decision could also bring out new internal dissent within both the Democratic and Republican parties. Liberal Democrats argued on Friday that the FDA should be told to stick to it’s position and not be told to change it.

“I believe that the Biden administration should ignore this ruling,” New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told CNN’s Anderson Cooper shortly after it was issued. The legitimacy of the courts is being eroded in an unprecedented and dramatic way.

Republicans could also find themselves at odds with one another as the electoral backlash following Dobbs – the ruling that overturned Roe – becomes more difficult to ignore.

Trump, who is a leading candidate for the GOP nomination, has been largely silent about abortion issues. In the middle of the year, Trump blamed abortion opponents for the GOP’s weak showing, saying that there were people who pushed so hard for decades against abortion who got their wish from the Supreme Court.

Now, though, the measure passed by nearly 57% of voters could be undercut by reduced access to a medication abortion pill, which is used in more than half of US abortions.