It’s Tuesday, the traditional day for elections and for our pause-and-consider newsletter on politics and policy.

[link removed]

[link removed]

Photo by Bill Grenblatt via Getty Images

It’s Tuesday, the traditional day for elections and for our pause-and-consider newsletter on politics and policy. We think of it as a mini-magazine in your inbox.

A CONFUSING LANDSCAPE ON ABORTION PILLS
By Lisa Desjardins, @LisaDNews ([link removed])
Correspondent

The past week has been a swarm of news. A former president was indicted ([link removed]) . A mega-leak of military secrets appeared on the internet ([link removed]) . And Tennessee’s legislature expelled ([link removed]) two duly elected members (though one has already been reinstated).

No other big headlines were needed, thank you.

But the news cycle had other ideas. Two high-stakes and conflicting court decisions arrived on the most common form of abortion: medication abortion ([link removed]) .

[link removed]
Watch the segment in the player above.

The legal tangle from both decisions is poised to affect every state and many millions of lives. But how is uncertain ([link removed]) . We thought it a good opportunity to lay out what we know.

What is the medication at the center?
* Mifepristone. A drug that blocks progesterone, which is a hormone needed for a pregnancy to continue.
* The Food and Drug Administration approved the drug ([link removed]) for use in abortions in 2000.
* In 2020, 98 percent of medication abortions in the U.S. used mifepristone. It’s used in conjunction with another drug, misoprostol, for medical abortions as well as for miscarriages, through 10 weeks of pregnancy.
* Also to know: Medication abortions make up roughly half of the abortions in America, according to the Guttmacher Institute ([link removed]) , a research group that advocates for abortion access.
* Medication abortion is possible without mifepristone. Misoprostol can be used safely for the pregnant person on its own ([link removed]) . But that approach is not favored because it can trigger more nausea, vomiting, cramping and diarrhea.


The Texas decision
* The ruling is this. The FDA did not properly vet the drug mifepristone and its use in abortions should be banned nationwide. This is a preliminary injunction, meaning the ban is temporary while the underlying case works through the courts.
* A little more on this case, please. The ruling sided with anti-abortion groups suing the FDA, alleging it rushed through approval of the drug.
* One specific legal theory involved. The judge espoused the idea that fetuses should be thought of as full humans. On the second page of his decision ([link removed]) , he wrote that the drug “ultimately starves the unborn human until death.”
* When does this go into effect? Friday, April 14. The judge delayed the effect of his ruling for one week, anticipating an appeal from the Biden administration, which happened yesterday.
* What happens next? We wait on a higher court. Yesterday, the Justice Department appealed the ruling and filed an emergency request to block it. The temporary ban is now before the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which oversees Texas ([link removed]) and a few other states. That court will decide in the next two days whether to get involved.
* And then? Very possibly, the Supreme Court. If the 5th Circuit allows a temporary ban on mifepristone, we are likely to see another Biden administration appeal that insists that the drug should stay available to the public, sending the case to the Supreme Court quickly.
* Another possible effect. Per The New York Times ([link removed]) , the judge's ruling is believed to be unprecedented in banning a drug approved by the FDA 23 years ago. If it holds up, it could open the possibility of more court involvement in drug and health policy.
* Who is the judge? U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk is a Trump appointee ([link removed]) . Here is his official biography ([link removed]) .
* Key documents to read. Here is Judge Kacsmaryk’s ruling ([link removed]) . And here is the Justice Department emergency appeal ([link removed]) to block it.


The Washington state decision
* The ruling is this. Mifepristone is proven safe and that its current use and availability must be allowed, at least temporarily, in 17 states whose attorneys general sued to protect access to it.
* Which states? Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington state and the city of Washington, D.C.
* A little more on this case, please. Absolutely. This group of Democratic attorneys general are suing over special FDA rules ([link removed]) that limit who can prescribe and provide mifepristone. The attorneys general argue those limitations are not appropriate and the drug should be more easily available. The judge here is not granting that yet. Instead he ordered the FDA to keep mifepristone available as it is now, in the states involved in the lawsuit.
* Timing. This ruling, though in a different court, was filed minutes after the Texas ruling above.
* When does this one go into effect? Immediately, per the judge’s order.
* But this directly conflicts with the other order. Yes. It is a highly unusual situation that has led to confusion and the greater potential real-world problems. More on this below.
* What happens next with this order? This order to keep status quo access in 17 states cannot be appealed by the FDA because it does not change current policy. However, the attorneys general can appeal to try to expand access and protection of the drug immediately, as they did in their initial lawsuit.
* Who is the judge? U.S. District Judge Thomas O. Rice is an Obama appointee ([link removed].) . Here is his official biography ([link removed]) .
* Key document. Here is Judge Rice’s ruling ([link removed]) .


What happens now?

In short, as of Tuesday, it is not yet clear.
* The first piece of news will likely be from the 5th Circuit on whether and how that court might rule on the Texas decision and possible national ban of mifepristone. We expect to know more about that in the coming days, before the Friday deadline dawns.
* But the conflicting orders and dual-track cases may be on a collision course for the Supreme Court, which may be the only entity that can issue a national decision.
* Some members of Congress have proposed legislation, but none is expected to be able to get through both the House and Senate.

More on politics from our coverage:
* Watch: A federal judge recently ruled against key preventative care requirements of the Affordable Care Act. The Biden administration has appealed. Free coverage of a range of screenings and services are now at risk ([link removed]) .
* One Big Question: A new ruling could chip away at the ACA. How many in the U.S. see health care as a basic right ([link removed]) ?
* A Closer Look: Uninsured patients say North Carolina’s Medicaid expansion is a life-changing development ([link removed]) .
* Perspectives: Politics Monday is back! NPR’s Tamara Keith and Amy Walter of the Cook Political Report discuss three big issues ([link removed]) that will play a big role in the 2024 campaign.

A LATE CHIEF JUSTICE ON THE 2ND AMENDMENT
[link removed]
Watch the clip in the player above.
By Dan Cooney, @IAmDanCooney ([link removed])
Social Media Producer/Coordinator

A 25-year-old employee at a Louisville bank opened fire with a rifle inside his workplace Monday, killing five people before police shot and killed him.

This was the 15th mass shooting in the U.S. in April, and the 146th of 2023, according to the Gun Violence Archive ([link removed]) , which defines a mass shooting as an event where four or more people are shot or killed by a firearm.

The shooting reignited the political debate around guns, with Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, a Democrat, sharing how he lost “a very close friend” ([link removed]) during the shooting.

During past mass shootings, we’ve noticed one particular video circulating on social media: a 1991 interview between former NewsHour correspondent Charlayne Hunter-Gault with former Chief Justice Warren Burger. During the interview, part of a series marking the 200th anniversary of the Bill of Rights, Burger called out the Second Amendment when asked what he would change about the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

“If I were writing the Bill of Rights now there wouldn't be any such thing as the Second Amendment,” Burger said on what was then known as The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour. “This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud — I repeat the word ‘fraud’ — on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

He pulled out his tiny copy of the constitution and read the Second Amendment aloud, which states that “a well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

“If the militia, which was going to be the state army, was going to be well-regulated,” Burger asked, “why shouldn't 16 and 17 and 18, or any other age, persons be regulated in the use of arms the way an automobile is regulated?”

The conversation around gun control at the time

Months before Burger’s appearance on the NewsHour, former President Ronald Reagan called on Congress to pass the Brady bill, a piece of legislation named for his press secretary who was wounded during the 1981 assassination attempt against him.

“Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics. This does not include suicides or the tens of thousands of robberies, rapes and assaults committed with handguns,” Regan wrote in a March 1991 New York Times op-ed ([link removed]) . “This level of violence must be stopped.”

It took another two years ([link removed]) before President Bill Clinton signed the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act into law.

#POLITICSTRIVIA
[link removed]
Watch the segment in the player above.
By Cybele Mayes-Osterman, @CybeleMO ([link removed])
Associate Editorial Producer

A ProPublica report revealed last week ([link removed]) that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas failed to disclose numerous luxury vacations paid for by his friend and GOP megadonor Harlan Crow. Thomas defended the 20 years’ worth of trips ([link removed]) , saying that he sought guidance early into his time on the high court and was advised that “this sort of personal hospitality from close personal friends, who did not have business before the Court, was not reportable.”

ProPublica’s report sparked some calls ([link removed]) for Thomas to resign or be impeached. Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee announced that a hearing could soon follow.

Since the Supreme Court first convened in 1790, only one justice was ever impeached. (Another resigned under the threat of impeachment.)

Our question: Who was the only Supreme Court justice in U.S. history to be impeached?

Send your answers to [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) or tweet using #PoliticsTrivia. The first correct answers will earn a shout-out next week.

Last week, we asked: One lawmaker has won reelection to Congress from prison. He was serving a four-month sentence for "acting in opposition to the president." Who was it?

The answer: Matthew Lyon ([link removed]) . The Vermont congressman, who the House website describes as a “colorful Member with a fiery temper,” ran afoul of the Sedition Act in 1798 when he wrote that President John Adams had “an unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation and selfish avarice,” among other accusations ([link removed]) . While jailed, Lyon campaigned for reelection — and won ([link removed]) .

Congratulations to our winners: John Njoroge and Gayle Ferioli!

Thank you all for reading and watching. We’ll drop into your inbox next week.
[link removed]
Want more news and analysis in your inbox?
Explore all of the PBS NewsHour's newsletters ([link removed]) .
[link removed]
[link removed]

============================================================
Copyright © 2023 WETA, All rights reserved.

Our mailing address is:
3620 South 27th Street
Arlington, VA 22206

** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])
** update subscription preferences ([link removed])