The Way To Save Abortion Is To Vote Against Republicans

From The New York Times editorial board: 

However the mifepristone case turns out, the threats to reproductive rights the justices unleashed by overturning Roe go much further.

The anti-abortion movement is pursuing its aims on many legal fronts. One focus of intense activity are so-called fetal-personhood laws, which endow fetuses (and, in some cases, even fertilized eggs) with the same legal rights as living, breathing human beings. Last month, Alabama’s Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos created through in vitro fertilization were to be protected as “extrauterine children,” relying in part on an 1872 state law. That sent lawmakers in Alabama scrambling to protect a procedure that is highly popular among Republicans and Democrats alike. Three weeks after the court ruling, they passed a law protecting patients and doctors who perform I.V.F. procedures from legal liability.

Fetal-personhood laws can also be used to target access to birth control, embryonic stem cell research and even women who suffer miscarriages.

In eliminating a woman’s constitutional right to choose what happens in her own body, the Supreme Court claimed to be respecting the democratic process by allowing state legislatures to determine whether abortion should be legal, and what, if any, limits should be placed on it. . . .

Instead of being settled at the state level, less than two years since the Dobbs ruling the issue of abortion has returned to the court and is likely to continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

The Dobbs ruling has forced a new public debate on abortion, and galvanized Americans’ support for it, which has been strong for decades. Since 1975, a majority of Americans have supported legal abortion in some or all cases, according to polling by Gallup, and that support has increased slightly since Dobbs. The percentage of Americans who think abortion should be illegal in all cases has gone down.

Since Roe was overturned in 2022, in every state where reproductive rights has been on the ballot, from Vermont to Kentucky, the abortion rights side has won. . . .

There are limits to the state-by-state approach when it comes to protecting bodily autonomy. Some states don’t allow ballot initiatives of the type that have led to abortion rights victories elsewhere. In Ohio and other states, lawmakers have sought to block or overturn attempts by voters to protect abortion rights, and anti-abortion lawmakers in several states have sought to prosecute anyone who helps a woman travel to another state to get an abortion.

In short, there is no silver bullet for reproductive rights. The judiciary is no haven, not as long as the current Supreme Court majority holds; state and lower federal courts aren’t much better, going by the Alabama I.V.F. ruling and the decisions that pushed the mifepristone case to the Supreme Court. At the same time, voter support for reproductive rights won’t make a difference if they can’t use ballot measures to make that support known.

That is why any successful strategy to protect or restore abortion rights must understand reproductive rights and representative democracy as inextricably linked.

That means understanding the stakes of the elections in November. If Mr. Trump’s party wins solid control of the House and Senate, this could put Americans’ reproductive rights at further risk. . . .

Voters will be faced with a stark choice: the choice of whether to protect not just reproductive rights, but true equality for women.

How Many Trump Convictions Will Wake Up The Voters?

This chart reflects the results of a Reuters / Ipsos Poll -- done between December 5th and 11th of a nationwide sample of 4,411 adults, with a 1.8 point margin of error.

Donald Trump is facing about 91 criminal charges in several different courts. Yet many polls are showing a very close race between Donald Trump and President Joe Biden. According to this poll, Trump would lose big if convicted of a crime -- with 59% saying they would not vote for him.

That has me thinking the voting public seems to have a very short memory. Hasn't Trump already been convicted in several courts of criminal conduct?

A court found that Trump (and his sons) created a fraudulent charity which benefitted only his sons and himself. They were fined and barred from creating another charity.

A court found Trump guilty of creating a fraudulent school. He was ordered to refund the money paid into it by "students".

A court convicted Trump of sexually abusing (raping) E. Jean Carroll, and then defaming her. He was ordered to pay millions in damages.

A court has found Trump guilty of fraud by inflating his property value for insurance and loans, and then deflating it for tax purposes. That court is currently considering how much Trump will have to pay for his guilty conduct.

I will grant you that all of the above convictions were in civil courts, but he could not have been convicted and fined if none of the actions he engaged in were crimes. Fraud is a crime, and so is sexual abuse (rape). Being convicted in a civil court instead of a criminal court doesn't make fraud or sexual abuse any less a crime.

Trump may or may not be convicted in a criminal court for one or all of the 91 indictments he's facing, and it may or may not happen before the November election. But it should not matter. We already know that Trump is a criminal, because he has broken the law.

We have already seen enough. Those who do not want a criminal in the White House should be voting against Trump. His criminal conduct makes him a criminal, whether found true in a civil or criminal court.

It's Time To Get Rid Of Qualified Immunity For Police

Recently, in Minnesota, Police Officer Derek Chauvin was convicted of murder in the death of George Floyd. But that was an unusual occurrence, and only happened because the entire incident was caught on tape by an innocent bystander. Most police officers accused of murder while on the job are set free by a jury. It is almost impossible to hold them criminally liable.

Another option for holding police responsible for misconduct lies in civil court, where they would be sued for their actions. Sadly, that is also a nearly impossible task. That's thanks to something called "qualified immunity", which makes police immune from civil action for conduct on the job.

But this is something that can be corrected. Legislatures (preferably the U.S. Congress) could do away with qualified immunity. Unfortunately, that is not something that the Republicans in Congress are willing to do -- even though a majority of the American public supports the elimination of qualified immunity.

The following is part of an editorial in The New York Times by that paper's editorial board:

Qualified immunity arose out of an 1871 civil rights law that made government officials, including police officers, financially liable for violating a person’s constitutional rights. In a series of rulings starting in the late 1960s, the Supreme Court decided that an officer is immune from liability unless it can be shown that he or she broke “clearly established” law in the process. The burden is on the plaintiff to make this showing, and the bar is absurdly high: If no other court has previously ruled in a case involving an essentially identical set of facts, the law is determined to be not “clearly established.”

Examples of courts splitting hairs to give a pass to even egregious misconduct abound: the prison guard who pepper-sprayed an inmate in the face “for no reason at all”; the officer who fired at a nonthreatening dog and missed, accidentally hitting a 10-year-old child lying nearby on the ground; the officers who stole $225,000 in cash and rare coins while executing a search warrant; the officer who shot a 14-year-old boy after he had dropped a BB gun and raised his hands. . . .

The Supreme Court has justified its creation by arguing thatofficials need “breathing room” to make “reasonable but mistaken judgments about open legal questions.” That’s true, but the police already enjoy many protections for their actions, especially in situations where they make split-second decisions.

In practice, qualified immunity has become what Justice Sonia Sotomayor has called an “absolute shield” that “tells officers that they can shoot first and think later, and it tells the public that palpably unreasonable conduct will go unpunished.”

The court has also expressed the concern that individual cops will be bankrupted by judgments. This simply doesn’t happen. To the contrary, governments virtually always foot the bill for police wrongdoing. One study found that officers personally paid only .02 percent of the dollars that plaintiffs were awarded.

The problems with the qualified immunity doctrine are legal as well as practical. Initially, courts weighing claims against officers first had to decide whether the officer had violated any constitutional rights — for example, by using excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. If the answer was yes, they moved on to decide whether the law regarding that right was clearly established. But a 2009 Supreme Court decision effectively eliminated that first step, allowing lower courts to jump straight to the second question, which they usually answered in favor of the cop. This creates a vicious circle: When courts stop considering what police behavior violates the Constitution, they leave both cops and civilians without a clear idea of what sorts of violations are considered clearly established. . . .

The Supreme Court started this mess, and it could just as easily end it. But despite a few recent cryptic opinions, meaningful reform doesn’t appear to be in the cards.

The more immediate solution is legislative. Congress is currently considering the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, a far-reaching bill addressing racial discrimination and excessive force by law enforcement officers. One provision would eliminate the “clearly established” defense and prevent cops from relying on their own belief that their conduct was lawful. Unfortunately, that has become the bill’s main sticking point, as most Republicans have sided with police unions in opposing any liability for individual officers. . . .

While Congress debates, state and local governments are moving forward. In the past year, Colorado, Connecticut and New Mexicohave all passed laws barring or limiting the use of qualified immunity in certain cases involving police officers. In March, the New York City Council approved a bill that makes it easier for people to sue police officers under local law for unreasonable searches and the use of excessive force, and denies officers the defense of qualified immunity in those cases.

The bill’s opponents lobbed objections that were as familiar as they were misguided. “Ending qualified immunity will prevent the best young men and women in our city from joining the police force,” said Councilman Robert Holden of Queens. That’s like saying laws against robbery will disincentivize the best thieves. In fact, the best young men and women aren’t the ones we need to worry about.

If the rule of law means anything, it means that those sworn to enforce it should not be above it.

Public: Justice System Not Fair & Police Killing Not Improved

The charts above are from a recent Axios / Ipsos Poll -- done between April 28th and May 4th of a national sample of 1,875 adults, with a 2.8 point margin of error.

It shows that the public does not believe that police and the courts treat all people equally. They also do not believe that police shootings of Black and Brown youths have improved.

Systemic racism exists, and it's time for Congress to do something about it!

You Have A Constitutional Right To Record The Police

(This cartoon image is by Clay Bennett in The Christian Science Monitor.)

The following was written by Khyla D. Craine (NAACP Assistant General Counsel), and is from the website of the NAACP. I repost it here because I think everyone should know their rights.

The question about our right to film and take pictures of police officers in the line of duty has resurfaced in the aftermath of the Walter Scott’s killing in North Charleston, South Carolina.  The answer according to multiple courts across the country is yes.  Federal Courts have continuously held that the First Amendment protects our right to take pictures and/or digitally record police officers engaging in their official duties.  See Smith v. Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000); Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436, 439 (9th Cir. 1995); and Robinson v. Fetterman, 378 F. Supp. 2d 534, 542 (E.D. Pa. 2005).  As with all protected speech, the government can place reasonable restrictions on this right, but cannot ban the right entirely—or arrest a person who complies with the restrictions, if any exist in the first place.  

If you are in a public space—such as on the sidewalks, streets and locations of public protests— or any other place where you have the legal right to be, including the common areas of private businesses, then you have the right to film and/or take pictures of the incident.  This right is limited in so far as you are not interfering with the officer performing their duties or placing the officer or public in danger.  (You should check your local police or governmental rules for their policy, if one exists). 

More importantly, the officer and/or the government at large, does not have the right to threaten, harass, or otherwise prevent you from exercising this right.  If a reasonable request to leave the area due to a potential harm is made by the officer, you should comply in manner that would eliminate the threat.  Your right to film/record an officer does not allow you to break the law in an effort to capture the images—including, for example, trespassing on another’s property.

We have an incredible power in the palm of our hands to help hold all of our public officials accountable, including the police. 

Same-Sex Marriage Is Now Legal In Alabama

The map above (from Think Progress) shows the new reality. A couple of weeks ago there were 36 states where same-sex couples could legally marry, but now that has climbed to 37. A federal judge in Alabama ruled the ban on same-sex marriages in that state was unconstitutional. The state asked the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals for a stay of that decision, and they were turned down. They then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court for a stay, and that court also turned them down.

That's means, as of Monday (2/9/15), same-sex couples can legally be married in Alabama. Right-wing heads are exploding in Alabama, and the Chief Justice of the state's Supreme Court, Roy Moore (who has already been kicked off that court once), issued an order he hoped would stop those marriages. He ordered the probate judges in the state to refuse to sign any same-sex marriage licenses, and when asked what would happen if they did, he said:

"Should any probate judge of this state fail to follow the Constitution and statutes of Alabama as stated, it would be the responsibility of the chief executive officer of the state of Alabama, Governor Robert Bentley ... to ensure the execution of the law." 

But while a few judges are following Moore's lead, many others are not and marriage licenses for gay/lesbian couples are being issued -- and the governor has said he will do nothing to stop that, saying:

"Probate judges have a unique responsibility in our state, and I support them. I will not take any action against probate judges, which would only serve to further complicate this issue.

"We will follow the rule of law in Alabama, and allow the issue of same sex marriage to be worked out through the proper legal channels."

But perhaps the best news of all is that only two justices of the Supreme Court (Thomas and Scalia) publicly opposed refusing to issue the stay for Alabama. And in a dissenting opinion, Justice Thomas seemed to be resigned to the probability that there is a majority on that court who will rule same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional. That means this long struggle could soon be over, and marriage equality will be the law in all 50 states.

Legal Rights Are For Everybody - Or Nobody

Recently, President Obama set aside some federal money to provide attorneys for the Central American children who made their way to this country and turned themselves in at the border. He did this because these children deserve a fair hearing in an immigration court (especially since many, if not most, would have their lives placed in danger if returned to their country of origin), and an attorney is a requirement for having a fair hearing.In fact, our Constitution guarantees everyone the right to an attorney when facing our legal system.

Unfortunately, a lot of people in this country don't agree with the president. The chart above was made from information in a new Rasmussen Poll (taken on September 29th and 30th of a random national sample of 1,000 likely voters, with a 3 point margin of error). It shows that a whopping 68% (nearly seven out of 10 Americans) don't think those children deserve the same rights that Americans have. They want them deported without a fair hearing.

That's a pretty head-hearted attitude, and it's very disappointing. But it's also unconstitutional. Our Constitution doesn't just guarantee legal rights to American citizens -- it guarantees those sam legal rights to everyone on American soil (regardless of who they are or why they are here). Our policing agencies and courts cannot treat a non-citizen in this country any differently than they would treat a citizen. Would we want a tourist to be abused and denied constitutional rights while visiting the United States? Of course not. Why then would we want to deny those rights to these unfortunate children?

These legal rights guaranteed by the Constitution must be granted to everyone in this country. Otherwise, we would have police and courts deciding whether a person has rights, or can be abused without recourse -- and if they can decide one person or group doesn't deserve any rights, then they can also decide any other individual or group doesn't deserve those rights. I don't think we should want to go down that road (especially with this country's history of denying rights to American citizens).

Rights are not something that should be parceled out at the whim of those in authority. They are either guaranteed to everybody, or to nobody.

The Right To Know The Penalties

Does a defendant in an American courtroom have the right to know what can happen to him, especially if he pleads guilty? The answer would seem obvious to most of us. It would be extremely unfair to spring a surprise punishment on a defendant after he pleads guilty. Under the rule of law, any defendant should be apprised of all possible consequences of his guilty plea or guilty verdict.

But believe it or not, there are some courts in this country who don't think all defendants should have that right. Consider the case of Jose Padilla. Padilla is a Honduran immigrant. He served in the American military during the Vietnam War, and has lived in this country for decades -- but he never became a citizen.

Padilla was arrested in Kentucky for "trafficking" in marijuana. After his lawyer told him he would not be deported, Padilla entered a plea of guilty. But his lawyer was wrong, and the United States government began deportation procedures. Padilla withdrew his plea, and the case has now reached the highest court in the land.

The crux of the case is that immigrants have the right to be told of all possible actions that could be taken against them, including deportation. The United States Supreme Court has decided to hear the case and make a ruling on this matter. They will hear arguments from both sides this coming Fall.

I have a hard time believing this matter is even in question. We are supposed to be a nation of laws and believers in a fair system of justice. How can a system be fair unless defendants are told the truth about possible consequences?

I know some right-wingers will say the system is meant only to be fair to citizens, but that is a ridiculous assertion. How can a system be fair when it treats some defendants more equally than others? What about tourists? Does the system not have to be fair to them because they are not U.S. citizens?

The only way our system of justice can be considered fair is if it treats everyone the same -- even those immigrants without proper documentation. After all, if you can deny equal rights to one group, then you can do it to any other group.

There is no question here. Immigrants have the right to know about all possible punishments, including deportation, before they go to trial or plead guilty.