Dear John,
The battle over abortion access continued to play out this week across a number of states, with right-wing state lawmakers advancing a number of abortion bans of varying severity. On Tuesday, Republican legislators in North Carolina—flexing their supermajority in both houses—overrode the Democratic governor’s veto of a bill that bans most abortions after 12 weeks and imposes severe restrictions on medication abortion. The law is set to take effect July 1.
In neighboring South Carolina, lawmakers in the state House pushed forward a ban on abortions after six weeks; fortunately, the five women state Senators who crossed party lines to filibuster and defeat the last abortion ban to come out of the House are likely to do so again. In Nebraska lawmakers voted to include a 12-week abortion ban in a bill that criminalizes gender-affirming care for minors. And in Montana, a judge temporarily blocked the state from enforcing a 15-week ban signed into law Tuesday by Gov. Greg Gianforte.
Meanwhile, abortion rights supporters in Florida embarked on the task of collecting the nearly 900,000 signatures required to put a measure on the ballot to restore the right to access abortion, even as that state’s two severe abortion bans are tied up in court. Signature gathering in Ohio for a similar ballot measure is continuing. (We encourage Ms. readers in Ohio and Florida to get involved—and if you’re not in either state, consider giving money to support the efforts.)
The Texas case challenging the FDA’s approval some 23 years ago of mifepristone, was argued before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday, during which three Republican-appointed judges signaled their hostile views on abortion. During the arguments, the judges aggressively challenged the Justice Department attorney defending the FDA. Clearly taking a cue from the anti-abortion movement’s playbook and revealing rather significant ignorance, one of the Trump-appointed judges referred to health providers’ ability to prescribe mifepristone via telemedicine, as the “mail business thing on the computer.”
The same judge then went on to attack the attorney for DANCO, the maker of mifepristone, for calling district court judge Kacsmaryk’s decision a “judicial assault” from a “non-expert court.”
But wait. The district court and the 5th Circuit panel hearing the case are without question, “non-experts.” I mean, you can tell by their questions and their remarks. Worse, they are reactionary ideologues willing to ignore the law in a push to impose their personal, religious views and empower far right Republicans in state legislatures and Congress. We have Mitch McConnell to thank for what are arguably the unqualified and “non-expert” judges confirmed during the Trump presidency at all levels of the federal judiciary—from the Supreme Court on down.
Which brings me to the urgency of confirming the judicial nominees of President Biden currently pending before the Senate Judiciary Committee -- and to the avalanche of headlines calling on California Senator Dianne Feinstein, who has been absent while recovering from a severe case of shingles, to resign. The argument goes, if Feinstein resigns from the Senate, she can be replaced with another Democratic Senator on the Judiciary Committee where Republicans have slow walked and held up Biden’s judicial nominees.
The problem with this reasoning? It ignores the fact that Senate Republicans can block a replacement for Feinstein on the Judiciary Committee—and they can block it indefinitely. Here’s why: at the beginning of a new Congressional session, all Senate committee appointments are handled in one resolution. The resolution virtually always passes with unanimous support because the Republicans want their committee assignments as well as the Democrats. When there’s a vacancy on a committee, because of death or resignation, the full Senate must again vote on a new resolution naming a replacement. And that resolution can be filibustered.
Because Feinstein is on the Judiciary Committee and not some other committee of lesser consequence, McConnell is going to do what McConnell always does, put his own interests and those of his corporate supporters over those of the country. And it’s not just the pending judicial nominations that are at risk. What happens if there’s a vacancy on the Supreme Court between now and the 2024 presidential election? We know what will happen. We’ve seen that movie before. And it’s a risk this country cannot take.
So, the best hope all along was that Feinstein recovered and returned to the Senate—which she did this week. But it begs the question: why did the calls for her resignation keep going without any explanation about these Senate rules? I’m taking a wild guess here … misogyny.
The ongoing attacks on women’s fundamental rights by the judiciary and reactionary state legislatures further underscore the importance of recognizing the Equal Rights Amendment in the Constitution—a call that now rests in the hands of Congress. A new petition drive, launched by college students in collaboration with long-time feminist leaders, former U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), and supported by allies in congress, including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), is sending the message that the time is now.
I urge all Ms. readers to sign the petition—and help gather signatures from your networks of friends and colleagues. Never has your action been more needed! (Click here to sign the petition.)
And finally, this week, we launched our latest Women & Democracy installment. Entitled Women’s Rights and Backsliding Democracies, the series asks (and answers) the question: “Can a country that has never truly addressed women’s equality ever be a thriving democracy? And are democracies that have abysmal records on gender equity destined to falter?” I urge you to explore the series’ amazing content and writers.
In the face of continued attacks by those who would take away our rights and leave us without agency, we say: no more.
Onward, for equality,
