News

(WASHINGTON) — As a leaked draft opinion of a Supreme Court ruling shows a conservative majority of justices appear poised to overturn federal protections of abortion rights, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said Thursday the Senate will hold a procedural vote to begin debate on the Women’s Health Protection Act next week.

WHPA is a bill that aims to codify Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision that grants protections for a woman’s right to abortion, at the federal level. The bill prohibits governmental restrictions on access to abortion services, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Chief Justice John Roberts confirmed Tuesday that the leaked draft opinion that could overturn Roe v. Wade was authentic. He has since ordered an investigation into the draft’s public release.

After narrowly passing in the House last September, WHPA has been stalled in the Senate. Schumer had failed to get the entire Democratic caucus on board when he tried to start debate on the bill in February.

At a press conference Thursday, Schumer expressed skepticism over whether the bill will receive the Republican votes it needs to pass. To overcome a filibuster, the bill needs support from 60 members of Congress.

While a final vote in the Senate needs a simple majority of 51 votes, the filibuster procedural rule requires a supermajority, or 60 votes, to start or end debate on legislation so it can face a final vote. Even if a party has a simple majority in the Senate, it still needs a super majority in order to put a bill to a final vote.

“Republicans will have two choices. They can own the destruction of women’s rights, or they can reverse course and work to prevent the damage. Count me as skeptical that they’ll do the latter. Republicans have been on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of America,” he said.

What’s in the WHPA bill?

The bill would prevent state governments from limiting a health care provider’s ability to prescribe certain drugs, offer abortion services via telemedicine, or immediately provide abortion services when the provider determines a delay risks the patient’s health, according to CRS.

It also prevents states from requiring patients to make medically unnecessary in-person visits before receiving abortion services or forcing women to disclose their reasons for obtaining abortions and related services. WHPA would ban states from prohibiting abortion services before or after fetal viability when a provider determines the pregnancy risks the patient’s life or health.

WHPA also prohibits other governmental measures that single out and restrict access to abortion services, unless a state government can prove the measure significantly advances the safety of abortion services or health of patients and cannot be achieved through less restrictive ways, according to CRS.

It also allows the Department of Justice, individuals or abortion providers to bring lawsuits against violations of the bill, regardless of whether restrictions were put in place before or after the bill becomes law.

The proposed legislation, introduced in the House by Rep. Judy Chu, D-Calif., last June, was a response to increased attacks on abortion rights over the last decade, according to an abortion rights advocate who spoke with ABC News.

“WHPA is a response to the last decade, where anti-abortion lawmakers and states have passed more than 500 restrictions and bans on abortion care,” Leila Abolfazli, the director of federal reproductive rights at the National Women’s Law Center, told ABC News.

Anti-abortion activists see WHPA as far too sweeping. One anti-abortion advocate said the bill would take down almost all state laws governing abortions.

“What it does primarily is it creates a right to abortion, all nine months of pregnancy [and] it would invalidate pretty much all state legislation that’s been passed,” said Jennifer Popik, a lawyer and director of federal legislation at anti-abortion group, National Right to Life.

She also called it “pretty much the most permissive abortion bill that’s ever been voted on in Congress.” Popik said the bill is as comprehensive as a right-to-abortion bill gets.

“Anything that treated abortion differently than any other medical procedure would be struck by this,” she said.

Abolfazli, from the National Women’s Law Center, instead, said WHPA “comprehensively addresses the web of restrictions and bans that have been put in place to stop people from getting abortions” as well as the attempts to “shame and stigmatize” anyone getting an abortion.

Republicans, aside from Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins who publicly support access to abortion, have sought to roll back Roe v. Wade for decades. But, Collins said she opposes WHPA.

“My goal is to codify what is essentially existing law. That means Roe v. Wade, it means Casey versus Planned Parenthood, which established the undue burden test. And it means keeping the conscience protections which appear to be wiped out by the Democrats’ version. So I’m not trying to go beyond current law or, but rather to codify those Supreme Court decisions,” Collins told ABC News’ Trish Turner on Thursday.

Murkowski and Collins have authored their own legislation proposals to codify Roe that have yet to be put up for vote.

What are the chances WHPA will become law?

Popik, of National Right to Life, said the bill is unlikely to become law given how it passed the House along party lines.

“Not only would they have a hard time getting to 50 votes on this, but they would need to get to 60 votes on this … I would have a hard time seeing the current Congress getting to 60 votes on anything,” Popik said, citing the filibuster.

“Senate Democrats are in control of the floor schedule, but they do not have 60 senators who would vote in support of the Women’s Health Protection Act, or any effort to protect abortion, because, in fact, I think it’s 47 senators are on record asking the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. So it is simply that the numbers are not there,” said Abolfazli, of the National Women’s Law Center.

Abolfazli added, “We have never had the numbers to pass something like this.”

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — It was an eyebrow-raising moment in the confirmation hearings for the first Black female Supreme Court justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson — a grilling about her stance on child porn offenders.

Several Republicans availed themselves of their time in front of a national audience to question Jackson about her philosophy around sentencing guidelines, to the frustration at times of the judge and Democratic lawmakers.

The words “pedophilia,” “grooming” and “child abuse” have also been tossed around by conservative figures and legislators in the debate about LGBTQ content, inclusion and treatment in schools.

Some Republicans seem to be resurfacing these false stereotypes as a political tool to rile up their base and further marginalize LGBTQ people, experts say.

The focus, the experts say, echoes the language used by the far-right conspiracy theory of QAnon, which promulgates the false notion that there is a secret cabal of Satan-worshipping pedophile power players who control the government.

“It’s yet another opportunity to exploit people who are feared, because they actually may obtain power,” said Susan Englander, historian at San Francisco State University.

“You’re gonna lie … you’re gonna give [voters] the worst-case scenario regarding what happens if these [progressive] things become normalized.”

Focusing on ‘grooming’

The Parental Rights in Education law, what critics call the “Don’t Say Gay” law, spurred debate over whether young children should learn about the LGBTQ community in schools, with several legislators calling such lessons “indoctrination.”

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the bill in March to ban curriculum mentioning sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through grade three “or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”

“We will make sure that parents can send their kids to school to get an education, not an indoctrination,” DeSantis said at the bill signing.

In a tweet, DeSantis’s press secretary, Christina Pushaw, claimed that anyone who opposes the Parental Rights in Education bill was “probably a groomer.” Grooming generally refers to when someone manipulates a person — typically a child or teen — in order to commit a sexual offense, according to the American Bar Association.

More than 6 in 10 Americans oppose legislation like the Florida bill that would prohibit classroom lessons about sexual orientation or gender identity in elementary school, according to a March ABC News/Ipsos poll.

DeSantis’ office did not respond to ABC News request for comment.

Shortly after, in April, a so-called “anti-grooming” protest by far-right extremists and conspiracy theorists took to the Disney World grounds where protestors falsely accused Disney, the parent company of ABC News, of helping groom children after the company criticized Florida legislators for implementing the so-called “Don’t Say Gay” bill.

QAnon goes mainstream

Some conservatives have seemingly co-opted language used by far-right extremists such as those who espouse the QAnon conspiracy theories over the last several years.

Former President Donald Trump, alongside other Republican lawmakers, helped push QAnon conspiracies into the mainstream.

During an NBC town hall in 2020, Trump said: “They are very strongly against pedophilia and I agree with that. And I agree with it very strongly.”

Some lawmakers across the country have followed suit about this claim and others.

In Michigan, state Republican Sen. Lana Theis falsely claimed in April her Democratic colleague Sen. Mallory McMorrow wants to “groom” and “sexualize” kindergartners and teach “that 8-year-olds are responsible for slavery” in a fundraising email, according to Traverse City ABC affiliate WGTU.

In New Jersey, the National Republican Congressional Committee claimed Democratic Rep. Tom Malinowski was protecting pedophiles, an accusation he told Yahoo News was a ploy to rile up their QAnon base.

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green, a Georgia Republican who continuously expresses support for a number of QAnon theories, called Democrats “the party of killing babies, grooming and transitioning children, and pro-pedophile politics” in April.

And during Judge Jackson’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings, the jurist faced misleading allegations by several Republican legislators that she has a “long record” of letting child porn offenders “off the hook” during sentencing.

Doug Berman, a leading expert on sentencing law and policy at The Ohio State University School of Law, told ABC News: “If and when we properly contextualize Judge Jackson’s sentencing record in federal child porn cases, it looks pretty mainstream” and several lawmakers have agreed.

“It’s a way of smearing liberalism,” Englander said.

She believes the Republican Party is creating a politics of fear around supporting the queer community or the Democratic party — so even non-LGBTQ people question their allyship and affiliation with the Democrats as to not be falsely connected to pedophilia.

The RNC, however, has not officially used language on “grooming” or “pedophilia,” nor has it endorsed such attacks on Democrats. And other Republicans, including former Vice President Mike Pence and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. have publicly denounced QAnon conspiracies.

The DNC did not respond to ABC News’ request for comment. The RNC declined to comment.

The criminalization of the LGBTQ community

Historians say the sentiment being associated with this new wave of legislation about sexuality and gender identity, however, is reminiscent of a long history of the demonization of the LGBTQ community.

Sodomy laws, which have roots in some of the earliest laws of the U.S., made same-sex relations or sexual activity illegal.

Throughout the 1900s, historians say law enforcement had several avenues to pursue against LGBTQ people, via laws against disorderly conduct, indecency, loitering, lewdness and more.

Cross-dressing laws, which are believed to have first appeared in Columbus, Ohio, in 1848, also encouraged officers to harass and abuse trans or queer people for dressing in clothes that didn’t correspond with their biological sex.

In the 1930s through the 1950s, so-called sexual psychopath laws began conflating homosexuality with sexual psychopathy, according to Organization of American Historians LGBTQ committee board member and Sonoma State professor Don Romesburg,

In a 1950 study on these laws, it states that people deemed to be sexual psychopaths were considered people “with criminal propensities to the commission of sex offenses.” This included homosexuality.

These laws steered the narrative in painting LGBTQ people as a harm to society, people to be considered as dangerous, according to historians.

Even still, in the 1990s, anti-homosexual laws barred educators from discussing LGBTQ topics in many school classrooms. Some of these laws are still on the books today, enshrining anti-LGBTQ sentiment in school systems in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Oklahoma.

This kind of rhetoric can have dangerous effects, historians say.

They say painting the community as criminals or predators will likely lead to violence and hate against LGBTQ people and allies. And after this talking point is abandoned by conservatives, the laws that arose from this will continue to impact lives:

“Long after those on the right have abandoned this tactic for the next rhetorical strategy that they move to, these laws will stay on the books,” Romesburg said.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The extraordinary leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion to overturn Roe v. Wade has triggered an equally extraordinary whodunnit focused on a small universe of court employees who have regular access to the institution’s most sensitive and confidential documents.

“I think the most likely explanation is that it’s an insider, and the only question is what is the motive?” said Cardozo Law professor Kate Shaw, a former clerk to Justice John Paul Stevens and ABC News legal analyst.

For the first time in court history, the Marshal of the Court – the institution’s little known chief operations officer, who also oversees an independent police force – is leading an internal investigation to identify the source of a leaked opinion draft.

“This was a singular and egregious breach of that trust that is an affront to the Court and the community of public servants who work here,” Chief Justice John Roberts said in a statement Tuesday announcing the probe.

Court Marshal Gail Curley, a career Army lawyer and West Point graduate with expertise in national security law, will take the lead, Roberts said. Her office has declined to provide details on how the investigation will be conducted or whether any findings will be made public.

Attorney General Merrick Garland declined Thursday to say whether any Justice Department or federal law enforcement resources have been requested or would be involved.

A likely key early focus of investigators will be the paper trail, since draft opinions are closely-held and not widely accessible.

Sources familiar with the drafting process said it can produce dozens of drafts and hundreds of pages of documents over the course of several months, particularly in high-profile cases.

After oral arguments in each case, the justices take an initial private vote and then begin writing opinions. They circulate copies among each other for feedback, often in multiple rounds electronically, according to former clerks. During that time views – and votes – can change.

“If it was the case that somebody from inside the Supreme Court’s building deliberately leaked this outside to the press, it’s outrageous. It’s really awful,” said Rachel Barkow, vice dean of NYU Law School and a former clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia. “It’s only when everyone agrees an opinion is ready to go out that all the opinions go public.”

Independent law enforcement analysts suggested investigators were likely to consider the possibility of a computer hack or computer carelessness — such as leaving a sensitive system unattended — but that the primary theory would likely be a deliberate act.

“A family member, a friend, someone who came across an opinion draft left in a restaurant or a hospital or something like that,” said Shaw. “But these opinions, again, are very closely held. They’re ordinarily not left sitting around.”

Possible suspects in the leak include each of the nine justices; roughly 30 administrative staff who work behind the scenes in the justices’ private chambers; and, the 37 law clerks who do research and writing of draft opinions.

“The justices trusted us implicitly,” said Thiru Vignarajah, a former clerk to retiring Justice Stephen Breyer. “There were two different servers — one for draft opinions and another for you to do your research — to make sure that an external hack didn’t happen to the Supreme Court.”

Sherif Gergis, a former clerk for Justice Samuel Alito, told ABC News the consequences for leaking were a widely known and compelling deterrent.

“There’s a very strong unspoken sense of confidentiality that does get spelled out when you begin,” Girgis, now a Notre Dame Law professor, said. “The clerks have extremely high personal incentives not to do anything like this because of the way that it could completely ruin their chances at a serious legal career.”

Investigators will hope to learn not just who leaked the draft but why — specifically whether there a political motive behind the act. The Alito draft in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health was marked “first draft” and dated Feb. 10; the court’s final decision is not expected until the end of June.

“The court really relies more than any other on the perception of the public that it’s doing something other than politics. And this doesn’t look like something other than politics,” Barkow said.

Politico, which first obtained the draft opinion, identified its source as a “person familiar with the court’s deliberations.” If an employee insider is outed, experts said he or she could be fired, sanctioned or disbarred as a lawyer.

However, if the leak was perpetrated by a justice directly, potential punishment is less clear. “There’s not a whole lot you can do to sanction a Supreme Court justice short of impeachment,” said Shaw.

The blow to the court’s credibility comes at a critical moment ahead of expected major rulings on not just abortion but school prayer, immigration and gun rights before the end of the term.

“I find it very hard to imagine a healthy functioning court next year if the person who made the leak isn’t identified, publicly identified and sanctioned for it,” Girgis said.

Other observers emphasized that the likely decision itself — overturning Roe v. Wade after almost 50 years of being considered settled and reaffirmed precedent — would do the most damage to the court’s reputation.

“We’ll talk about this leak for the next few days or the next couple weeks, but we will be talking about the impact of this decision — if it holds — for a decade or a generation,” said Vignarajah. “And we’re taking one of the most divisive issues in American history and turning it back into a political football.”

ABC News’ Miles Cohen and Alex Mallin contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(ATLANTA) — An administrative law judge in Georgia on Friday ruled that GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene can stay on the ballot for the state’s 14th Congressional District following a challenge to her reelection candidacy.

A group of Georgia voters had argued that Greene was not eligible to run for reelection under the “disqualification clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment due to her alleged support for the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

In his 19-page opinion, Judge Charles Beaudrot said that the burden of proof is on the challengers and that they “failed to prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence.”

Beaudrot also said that the evidence in the case was insufficient to establish that Greene “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or [gave] aid or comfort to the enemies thereof under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.”

The judge’s ruling is a recommendation; the final decision on whether Greene stays on the ballot for the May 24 primary will be made by Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.

Greene Decision by ABC News Politics

Free Speech For People, the legal organization representing the challengers, released a statement saying that the judge’s “decision betrays the fundamental purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment’s insurrectionist disqualification clause and gives a pass to political violence as a tool for disrupting and overturning free and fair elections.” The statement also urged Raffensperger to take a “fresh look” at the evidence and to reject the judge’s recommendation.

Passed after the Civil War, the disqualification clause bars any person who has “engaged in insurrection” against the United States or “given aid or comfort” to its “enemies” from holding federal office if they have previously taken an oath to protect the Constitution. That includes members of Congress.

In his opening statement at Greene’s hearing, Ron Fein, a lawyer representing the five voters and the legal director of Free Speech For People, argued Jan. 6 was an insurrection and was Greene was one of its leaders.

“This was not the type of insurrection where the leaders were standing in Richmond, Virginia, giving long-winded speeches,” Fein said. “Rather, the leaders of this insurrection, of whom there were a number, were among us — on Facebook, Twitter and corners of social media that would make your stomach hurt. The evidence will show that Marjorie Taylor Greene was one of them.”

“The most powerful witness against Marjorie Taylor Greene’s candidacy, the most powerful witness in establishing that she crossed the line into engagement of insurrection, is Marjorie Taylor Greene herself,” he said.

In his opening statement, Greene’s attorney James Bopp, argued that the voters of Georgia’s 14th Congressional District have the “right to vote for the candidate of their choosing. And they have a right to have their vote counted,” adding that Greene was not a perpetrator but a “victim” of the attack, which he argued was “despicable” but not an insurrection.

“Her life was in danger, she thought,” Bopp said. “She was scared and confused.

Greene said that while in lockdown she went inside the cloakroom and made a video directed at those storming the Capitol.

“Obey the law,” Greene said in the video, also played in the courtroom. “This is not a time for violence. This is a time to support president trump and support election integrity. God bless.”

Greene repeatedly denied that she or her office gave tours to or met with protesters ahead of the Jan. 6 rally or that she provided maps of the Capitol building.

“I would have to talk to people on my campaign, but I don’t think we did,” she said. “How would we have done that? We didn’t do anything like that.”

She also insisted she didn’t recall sending tweets and making other social media posts presented as evidence, or the circumstances around many of her statements that were shown on a video monitor in the courtroom.

The hearing heated up when Andrew Celli, another lawyer for the voters, pressed Greene about whether she encouraged former President Donald Trump to impose martial law after the riot.

“And you had meetings with him between the election in 2020 and January 20th of 2021, right?” he asked.

“Yes,” Greene responded.

“And in those meetings, you discussed with him your advocacy for the idea that there should be martial law declared in the United States?” Celli pressed.

“No, I don’t recall ever discussing that,” she responded.

“Are you saying it didn’t happen or you’re saying you don’t recall one way or the other?” Celli continued.

“I don’t recall ever discussing that,” Greene repeated.

Bopp objected to the line of questioning, but the judge allowed it to continue.

Celli then asked Greene whether she ever advocated for martial law in conversations with then-chief of staff Mark Meadows or Trump prior to President Joe Biden’s inauguration.

“I don’t recall,” Greene said.

Evidence later emerged showing Greene did have conversations with Meadows advocating for martial law to keep Trump in power.

“In our private chat with only Members, several are saying the only way to save our Republic is for Trump to call for Marshall law [sic],” Greene texted Meadows on Jan. 17, 2021, 11 days after the pro-Trump mob attacked the U.S. Capitol to try to stop the certification of the vote.

“I don’t know on those things,” Greene continued. “I just wanted you to tell him. They stole this election. We all know. They will destroy our country next. Please tell him to declassify as much as possible so we can go after Biden and anyone else!”

ABC News’ Katherine Faulders and Will Steakin contributed to this report

Copyright © 2022, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.