Abortion wars, etc.

Anti-abortion forces slowly inch toward prosecuting women who get an abortion: 

Talk of prosecuting women for abortion pills 

roils antiabortion movement

Alabama attorney general became the most prominent Republican official yet to suggest that abortion seekers could be charged 

The comment reflects a simmering divide within the antiabortion movement, which has long sought to treat women seeking abortions as “victims” and not as targets for punishment.

We can see where this is going. The urge to prosecute women who get or try to get an abortion is strong and relentless with anti-abortion radicals. Sooner or latter the psychological barriers will fall, and women will routinely be prosecuted as murderers. That will take a couple of years to come about, but it very likely is coming, maybe ~85% chance in the next three years. 

----------------------------

----------------------------

More classified documents found - Biden is screwed, Trump probably gets off the hook (again): 

President Biden’s legal team found additional classified documents when they searched a second location after finding secret government papers in a different Biden office in early November, according to a person familiar with the investigation.

Legal representatives for the president found additional classified material at a second location, a person said Wednesday, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss an ongoing investigation. The person would not say when that material was found.

What a mess. This will probably neuter any investigation into what Trump did, even thought it should not make any difference at all. But no one is saying much right now. So as usual, we will have to wait for months. Or years. Or forever.

----------------------------

----------------------------

Regarding the pulse of democracy and tolerance -- things are not getting much better: 

At points in the past half-century, many U.S. antisemitism experts thought this country could be aging out of it, that hostility and prejudice against Jews were fading in part because younger Americans held more accepting views than did older ones.

But a survey released Thursday shows how widely held such beliefs are in the United States today, including among younger Americans. The research by the Anti-Defamation League includes rare detail about the particular nature of antisemitism, how it centers on tropes of Jews as clannish, conspiratorial and holders of power.

The survey shows “antisemitism in its classical fascist form is emerging again in American society, where Jews are too secretive and powerful, working against interests of others, not sharing values, exploiting — the classic conspiratorial tropes,” Matt Williams, vice president of the ADL’s year-old Center for Antisemitism Research, told The Washington Post. 

----------------------------

----------------------------

Climate update:

Last year was the fifth hottest ever recorded on the planet, the European Union’s Copernicus Climate Change Service announced Tuesday. It was part of an unabated broader warming trend as humans continue to pump massive amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

The year “2022 was yet another ... of climate extremes across Europe and globally. These events highlight that we are already experiencing the devastating consequences of our warming world,” Samantha Burgess, deputy director of Copernicus, said in a statement announcing the annual findings.

She said data from 2022 provides “clear evidence that avoiding the worst consequences will require society to both urgently reduce carbon emissions and swiftly adapt to a changing climate.”

Source: WMO

The impending destruction of federalism and the Union by the Supreme Court

The New Republic writes about what happens to the US when the Supreme Court intervenes on behalf of radical right states and takes laws or freedoms away from all other states. The destruction of Federalism and maybe the Union itself arises when blue states refuse to comply with conflicting red state demands. That was roughly how America’s Civil War began in 1861. TNR writes:

Historically, when the Supreme Court strays too far from what the vast majority of the public wants and starts catering to a white Southern minority, nothing good comes of it. When the Supreme Court decided in 1857 not only that Dred Scott was not a free man but that no Black person could be a citizen of the United States or enjoy the rights afforded them by the Constitution, it doomed the country to civil war. In the process of protecting “states’ rights” for white Southerners, the Supreme Court led by Roger Taney trampled both human rights and the rights of free states to prohibit slavery on their own territory.

The echoes of the past are even clearer when you compare the language and reasoning of the Taney and the current Roberts court. The written opinion of Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Sandford relied on the same sort of “originalist” logic used by Associate Justice Samuel Alito in Dobbs v. Jackson. Indeed, this passage by Taney on why Blacks were doomed to slavery, based on an originalist reading of the Constitution, could have been written by Alito last year:

Yet the men who framed this declaration were great men—high in literary acquirements—high in their sense of honor, and incapable of asserting principles inconsistent with those on which they were acting. They perfectly understood the meaning of the language they used, and how it would be understood by others.… They spoke and acted according to the then established doctrines and principles, and in the ordinary language of the day, and no one misunderstood them. [Note: Historians firmly reject the assertion that no one misunderstood the founders -- that is a key lie at the heart of radical right anti-democratic politics and policy] 

The logic used by the court and the effects of its decisions were described eloquently by Adam Serwer in a 2018 Atlantic article: “They carefully framed their arguments in terms of limited government and individual liberty, writing opinion after opinion that allowed the white South to create an oppressive society in which black Americans had almost no rights at all. Their commitment to freedom in the abstract, and only in the abstract, allowed a brutal despotism to take root in Southern soil.”

As if to drive this point home, the Roberts court ruled in Shinn v. Ramirez that it doesn’t matter if a person is innocent based on the preponderance of the evidence; so long as procedure was followed, the state can still execute people. Justice in the abstract, and only in the abstract, all over again.

Today, the Roberts Supreme Court is poised to do similar damage in perhaps as little as 20 years. We’ve already seen the court strike down most of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in Shelby v. Holder (2013), and it looks ready to finish off the rest of it soon. It’s allowed states to strip Native Americans of their right to vote using the pretext of preventing voter fraud in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee. The court decided in Gill v. Whitford (2018) that while it’s unfortunate that partisan gerrymandering undeniably ends democracy, there’s nothing it can do about it constitutionally. 

At the same time, the Roberts court is elevating the dominant forces in our society while striking down the civil rights of minorities. It keeps finding that Christian organizations have a right to government money, while at the same time finding they also have a right to discriminate against LGBTQ people, Jews, etc. This is freedom in the abstract: Even if Jews and LGBTQ people were allowed to discriminate against Christians, it would have a negligible impact on Christians compared to Christians being permitted to discriminate against groups that make up much smaller percentages of the population. It is akin to saying Christians can only shop at Kroger, and Jews can only shop at Jewish-run businesses: The harm falls disproportionately on the minority groups.

All the while, the right flank of the court engages in partisan activity. Associate Justice Samuel Alito openly sneers at and mocks justices who support gun control. Clarence Thomas is married to a woman who supported overthrowing the 2020 election and publicly uses right-wing talking points about “cancel culture.” Amy Coney-Barrett served as a “handmaid” in a right-wing Christian cult. Bret Kavanaugh’s hearings painted him as a beer-swilling alleged rapist with ultrarich parents to pay off his debts incurred by his country-club lifestyle.  

But the real Dred Scott moment will be at hand when red states begin trying to extradite people from the blue states for the crime of getting abortions, providing abortions, or providing transition-related care to transgender people. Deep blue states have been creating haven and sanctuary laws to protect women, doctors, transgender people, and parents of trans youth. Both California and Massachusetts have passed sanctuary laws that would prevent people from being extradited for seeking abortions in their states. Given that eradicating abortion and eliminating health care for trans people have become the top social policy priorities for conservatives, the reaction from powerhouses like the Heritage Foundation has been swift: They see these blue-state moves as a direct threat to their agenda.

We may already see the genesis of the case that breaks the camel’s back on the horizon. Luna Younger is a trans child who was involved in a protracted custody case in Texas. She was also supposedly the reason for Governor Abbott’s move to have Child Protective Services remove trans youth from supportive homes. Eventually, Luna’s supportive mother (a pediatrician) gained sole custody and has moved to California. Her father, Jeff Younger (a ne’er-do-well who lied about his military service, employment, and education), is demanding that the Texas politicians override the state courts and attempt to extradite her back to Texas.

Younger is a right-wing Christian authoritarian. He recently tweeted, “Want to save civilization? Take power and rule.” He also has the connections to make Texas test the legality of sanctuary state laws for women and trans people. Eventually, the Supreme Court will have to decide, are people free once they leave a state like Texas? Or do they remain property of that state forever, even if they leave? Last year the Idaho House passed a bill that would make it a felony punishable by life in prison to help a transgender person under the age of 18 to travel out of state for treatment.

Given this court, we know how it’s almost certain to answer. Just as the Taney court allowed the laws of states to reach out and take freedom away from people who fled north and west, so too would the partisan Roberts court allow these same states to extradite and incarcerate women and parents of trans youth who seek legal, necessary medical treatment elsewhere.

Which brings us to the breaking point: The California attorney general would be under heavy pressure morally and from the voters to refuse to comply. At that point, federalism, and the Union, are dead, as states refuse to recognize the legitimacy of court decisions, and the comparisons with the Taney court are complete.

I will continue to warn about the grave danger the hyper-radical Christian nationalists on the Supreme Court represent to democracy, inconvenient truth, civil liberties, tolerance, pluralism and secularism. 

By now, most people paying attention senses that the danger is real and unfolding in real time. Most of those paying attention but who still cannot see much or any danger, e.g., most Republicans and conservatives, seem to unknowingly or at least implicitly support where America’s radical right is taking us. They falsely see this as mostly patriotic, Christian, solidly constitutional, not bigoted, and neutral or good for America. 

Bits: COVID vaccine price gouge, etc.

From the ruthless capitalism files: Here it comes again. Unregulated markets running free, wild and butt naked are about to screw us royally. Again. Ars Technica writes:

Moderna CEO: 400% price hike on COVID vaccine 

“consistent with the value”

Lawmakers have already called Pfizer's similar plan “pure and deadly greed”

Moderna is considering raising the price of its COVID-19 vaccine by over 400 percent—from $26 per dose to between $110 and $130 per dose—according to a report by The Wall Street Journal.  

The plan, if realized, would match the previously announced price hike for Pfizer-BioNTech's rival COVID-19 vaccine.  

Until now, the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech have been purchased by the government and offered to Americans for free. In the latest federal contract from July, Moderna's updated booster shot cost the government $26 per dose, up from $15–$16 per dose in earlier supply contracts, the Journal notes. Similarly, the government paid a little over $30 per dose for Pfizer-BioNTech's vaccine this past summer, up from $19.50 per dose in contracts from 2020.

Note the standard capitalist moral justification here, “consistent with the value.” Nothing is said about cost to make and distribute the vaccine, whose price has already increased once by ~70% for Moderna and ~55% for Pfizer. Even worse, US taxpayers spent at least $1 billion to de-risk the development of Moderna’s COVID vaccine. Now the capitalists return the favor by blowing us all a “consistent with the value” raspberry and jacks the price up again, this time about 4-fold (400%).

We all know how this will play out in congress. Democrats will complain and try too do something, Republicans will block it, claiming they are fighting against socialist tyranny (to most Republicans there is no such thing as price gouging) and us taxpayers will get price gouged as usual. Unregulated capitalism and health care just do not mix.

---------------------------

---------------------------

The radicalized Republican Party: A WaPo opinion piece continues a wave of analysis what appears to reflect an awakening by some of the mainstream media that the GOP is a radicalized, anti-democratic political power. Jennifer Rubin opines:

There are no moderate House Republicans

Listen to the mainstream media’s coverage of House Republicans, and you might think there is a mass of “normal” Republicans who do not buy into election denial, who are not apologists for former president Donald Trump, and who understand that the party’s crazy talk and election conspiracy theories contributed to its historic underperformance in the 2022 midterms.

The mystery: Where are these people hiding?

Prime suspects would be the 18 Republicans from districts that Joe Biden won in 2020, such as Reps. David Schweikert (Ariz.), Don Bacon (Neb.) and Thomas H. Kean (N.J.). Yet every single one of them voted 15 times to make Kevin McCarthy, an election denier, the speaker of the House.

Every single one of them also voted for the rules package that the House passed this week, which sets up a standoff over the debt limit, creates a committee to “investigate” ongoing criminal cases and hobbles the Office of Congressional Ethics. Nor did they didn’t bat an eye over reports that McCarthy (Calif.) promised to give more seats on the Rules Committee to MAGA radicals. Pretty immoderate behavior.  

Rarely if ever do the media grill these (im)moderate members on their enabling of the far right. Frankly, reporters do a disservice to the voters by characterizing them as somehow more sensible than the Freedom Caucus crazies. With the House as closely divided as it is, it would take only a few of them to defeat radical measures. Yet time and again, they cave.

---------------------------

---------------------------

Opinion poll on the Supreme Court: A Gallup poll from last august indicates that most Americans believe the court is partisan political. However, the difference in perceptions by Democrats (13% approve) and Republicans (74% approve) is big.

The Hill comments: “Two-thirds of the public support term limits. But Republicans have little incentive to back legislation that, from their perspective, solves a nonexistent problem.”

Since rank and file Republicans like what they see in the current Supreme Court, does that make them as a group authoritarian or fascist, even if most are partly or mostly unaware of what the Christofascist court they approve of is doing?

---------------------------

---------------------------

Egads!! The debt ceiling problem is upon us right now!: The Ap writes:

The federal government is on track to max out on its $31.4 trillion borrowing authority as soon as this month, starting the clock on an expected standoff between President Joe Biden and the new House Republican majority that will test both parties’ ability to navigate a divided Washington, with the fragile global economy at stake.

Once the government bumps up against the cap — it could happen any time in the next few weeks or longer — the Treasury Department will be unable to issue new debt without congressional action. The department plans to deploy what are known as “extraordinary measures” to keep the government operating. But once those measures run out, probably mid-summer, the government could be at risk of defaulting unless lawmakers and the president agree to lift the limit on the U.S. government’s ability to borrow.

I didn’t realize this nasty issue was coming alive so soon. Let the bickering, slandering and posturing commence. Unleash the Jim (Jordan), the Marjorie (MTG), the Matt (Gaetz) and the Kevin (McCarthy)!!!

The blue-eyed Kevin holding the chains just before he 

unleashes the Jim, Marjorie and Matt hounds

upon us all

We’re in real trouble now ☹️

New House Republican majority prepare for debt limit fight that could cause chaos and recession

The US economy already is on a knife edge, with fears of a looming recession amid a historic effort to tame decades-high inflation.

Now, members of the new House Republican majority have amped up the uncertainty by saying they won’t let the federal government keep borrowing money this year without an agreement to significantly cut spending. A standoff over increasing the $31.4 trillion debt limit when it’s reached later this year could roil financial markets, trigger higher borrowing costs, and push the economy into a recession it might otherwise have avoided, experts said.

The economic fallout would be even worse if, unlike in previous showdowns, Congress doesn’t ultimately raise the limit in time to avoid a first-ever US government default on its bills. The difficulty that the narrow House Republican majority had in electing Kevin McCarthy as speaker last week has amplified the concerns.

“I think the the economy’s going to struggle this year, but we have a fighting chance to avoid a downturn, assuming we don’t make a big mistake, like breaching the debt limit or even threatening to breach the debt limit,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, an economics research and consulting firm. “The dysfunction in Washington is a very, very serious threat to the economy and our ability to avoid a recession in 2023.”

One of the concessions McCarthy made to win the speaker’s gavel was to use the need to raise the debt limit to force Democrats to agree to federal spending cuts. House Republicans have loudly complained about the rising national debt under President Biden, although they were largely silent as it shot up during the Trump administration.

The table is already being set for a high-stakes clash.

“I’ve never voted for a debt ceiling increase, and I won’t unless it’s paired with meaningful reform,” Representative Mike Gallagher, a Wisconsin Republican, said last week. Former president Donald Trump egged on Republicans this week, writing on Truth Social that they should be “playing tough in the upcoming debt ceiling negotiations.”

 

That’s got Democrats worried. While there is bipartisan agreement that the rising debt needs to be addressed, the White House has said Biden won’t negotiate over raising the debt limit, which is required to pay for spending already authorized by Congress.

“There will be no hostage-taking,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said this week. “The full faith and credit of our country is too important to allow any of that, because to default would be to force extraordinary costs on the American economy and American families.”

Biden knows the damage a debt limit standoff can cause. He was vice president in 2011 when House Republicans under speaker John Boehner, fresh off winning control of the chamber after four years in the minority, balked at increasing the limit until the last minute during the Obama administration.

“It was terrifying, and the terror came from not being sure that Speaker Boehner had the ability to control his caucus,” said Harvard economist Jason Furman, who was a top White House economic official at the time. “The debt limit is just an existential threat to the US economy.”

Boehner had about a 50-seat majority in the House. McCarthy has only a four-seat majority, giving him much less flexibility to make a debt limit deal with Biden and the Democrats.

Fr. Boston Globe 1/11: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2023/01/11/nation/debt-limit-fight-could-cause-financial-chaos-push-economy-into-recession-experts-warn/?et_rid=1312764944&s_campaign=todayinpolitics:newsletter