(NEW ORLEANS) — President Joe Biden planned to travel to New Orleans Friday to survey damage caused by Hurricane Ida, meeting with local leaders and demonstrating the federal response to the storm that made landfall in Louisiana before devastating much of the Northeast United States.
Biden was scheduled to head to hard-hit LaPlace, La., just outside New Orleans, to receive a briefing from local leaders, tour a neighborhood and make remarks.
He planned to then take an aerial tour of particularly battered communities in the area, including Lafitte, Grand Isle, Port Fourchon and Lafourche Parish, according to the White House.
Later, he was scheduled to travel to meet with local leaders in Galliano, La., south of New Orleans.
The White House has sought to project a strong federal response to the storm as the president suffers from public disapproval of his handling of another recent crisis, the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.
During remarks Thursday, Biden told those in the Gulf region that “we’re all in this together.”
“The nation is here to help,” he said.
Ida and its remnants have left more than at least 61 people dead in eight states, including at least 48 in the Northeast.
(NEW ORLEANS) — President Joe Biden traveled to New Orleans Friday to survey damage caused by Hurricane Ida, meet with local leaders and demonstrate the federal response to the storm that made landfall in Louisiana before devastating much of the Northeast United States.
“We came because we want to hear directly from you all, what specific problems you’ve been dealing with,” Biden told local officials in hard-hit LaPlace, Louisiana, just outside New Orleans
In LaPlace, local officials spoke with the president about the destruction in the region and the long-term impact the storm would have in the area.
Biden told the officials — including Gov. John Bel Edwards, the CEOs of local hospitals and the energy company Entergy, members of Congress and local parish presidents — that he thought it was important to rebuild damaged infrastructure in a more resilient manner, whether it meant placing power lines underground or making roofs stronger.
“This storm has been incredible, not only here but all the way up the East Coast,” Biden said.
Air Force One touched down in New Orleans early Friday afternoon, where the president was greeted by federal, state and local officials from Louisiana: Edwards, U.S. Sens. Bill Cassidy and John Kennedy, U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise, New Orleans Mayor LaToya Cantrell and Jefferson Parish President Cynthia Lee Sheng.
Biden then took a helicopter over storm-damaged homes to LaPlace, where in addition to the briefing from local leaders, he planned to tour a neighborhood and make remarks.
He was then scheduled to take an aerial tour of particularly battered communities in the area, including Lafitte, Grand Isle, Port Fourchon and Lafourche Parish, according to the White House.
Later, he was scheduled to travel to meet with local leaders in Galliano, La., south of New Orleans.
The White House has sought to project a strong federal response to the storm as the president suffers from public disapproval of his handling of another recent crisis, the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.
During remarks Thursday, Biden told those in the Gulf region that “we’re all in this together.”
“The nation is here to help,” he said.
Ida and its remnants have left more than at least 61 people dead in eight states, including at least 48 in the Northeast.
(NEW YORK) — President Joe Biden’s job approval rating has fallen underwater in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll amid broad disapproval of his handling of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, including a share of blame on Biden for conditions leading to last week’s devastating Kabul airport attack.
Overall, in a sad coda to the nearly 20-year, $2 trillion effort, just 36% of Americans say the war was worth fighting. There was 77% support for the United States withdrawing; the sticking point is how Biden handled it: 60% disapprove.
Slammed by the crisis, his overall job approval rating in this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, is down to 44%, with 51% disapproving – down 6 percentage points in approval and up 9 in disapproval since late June. Intensity has moved decidedly negative: Many more now strongly disapprove, 42%, than strongly approve, 25%.
A substantial 44% think the withdrawal left the United States less safe from terrorism, while only 8% think the country is safer as a result. (The rest see no difference.) One factor: nearly half, 46%, lack confidence that the United States can identify and keep out possible terrorists in the ranks of Afghan refugees.
Still, another result marks a humanitarian impulse despite that security concern: Sixty-eight percent support the United States taking in Afghan refugees after they’ve been screened for security, versus 27% opposed. That’s far more support than Americans expressed for accepting Syrian and other Mideast refugees in 2015, 43%.
Biden and blame
Just 26% of the public both favors the withdrawal of U.S. forces and approves of how Biden handled it. Sixty-nine percent instead express criticism: 52% who support withdrawing but disapprove of how Biden handled it and 17% who oppose having withdrawn.
Another measure simply asks if Americans approve or disapprove of how Biden has handled the situation in Afghanistan. On this, 30% approve, with, as noted, 60% disapproving.
Further, 53% say his handling of the withdrawal bears some blame for the suicide bombing attack that killed 13 U.S. service members and more than 170 Afghans last week — a great deal of blame, 38%, and a good amount, 15%.
Approval
Biden came into office with 67% approval for his handling of the transition, but that quickly subsided to 52% job approval in April, held roughly steady at 50% in June and is down to 44% now.
In polling data since the Harry Truman administration, only two presidents have had a lower approval rating at this point in their terms: Donald Trump, at 37% in August 2017, and Gerald Ford, also 37%, in March 1975.
There are some dramatic gaps in Biden’s overall approval — 18 points higher among women than men (53% to 35%), 23 points higher among members of racial and ethnic minority groups than whites (59% versus 36%), 24 points higher among adults with a post-graduate degree versus those without a college degree (63% versus 39%) and 28 points higher among urban residents versus those in rural areas (52% versus 24%; it’s 43% in the suburbs).
In shifts since June, Biden’s approval is down especially among men (down 10 points), urban residents (down 10), independents (down 9), Democrats (down 8) and slightly among whites (down 6). It’s essentially unchanged among women, suburban residents, Republicans and racial or ethnic minorities.
The drop among men reflects their much higher likelihood of placing some blame for the Aug. 26 airport bombing on Biden’s handling of the withdrawal: Sixty-two percent of men hold this view, compared with 45% of women.
Partisans
Political differences are very sharp. Biden has just 8% overall approval from Republicans, and 36% from independents, compared with 86% among Democrats. It’s 13% among conservatives, 53% from moderates and 69% among liberals.
The president’s rating drops especially steeply among Democrats when it comes specifically to his handling of the situation in Afghanistan. Here, he gets 56% approval within his own party, 30 points lower than for his job performance overall.
Partisan differences subside on another measure: Majorities across the political spectrum support accepting screened Afghan refugees — 79% of Democrats, 71% of independents and, fewer, but still 56% of Republicans. Results are similar by ideology, with accepting refugees backed by 80% of liberals, 77% of moderates and 58% of conservatives. Support is lowest, albeit still a majority, among the least-educated adults — 54% among those who haven’t gone beyond high school.
Methodology
This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by landline and cellular telephone Aug. 29-Sept. 1, 2021, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 1,006 adults. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 percentage points, including the design effect. Partisan divisions are 30-24-36%, Democrats-Republicans-independents.
The survey was produced for ABC News by Langer Research Associates of New York with sampling and data collection by Abt Associates of Rockville, Maryland. See details on the survey’s methodology here.
(HOUSTON) — A day after the nation’s most restrictive anti-abortion law went into effect, doctors and advocates reported a steep decline in abortions across Texas.
Houston provider Dr. Bhavik Kumar said he normally performs between 20 to 30 abortions a day. Since the new law, he said he’s only seen six patients — and was forced to turn half of them away.
“Just yesterday I saw somebody who thought she was earlier in the pregnancy, but once she got here and had her ultrasound, found out she was much further along,” said Kumar, who works out of a Planned Parenthood. “She was crying and we began to explore options and think through the logistics of if she would be able to go out of state for the care that she needed.”
The new law bans physicians from providing abortions “if the physician detects a fetal heartbeat” including embryonic cardiac activity, which can be as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, and stipulates that any private citizen can sue a person who they believe is providing an abortion or assisting someone in getting an abortion in Texas after six weeks. A plaintiff could collect at least $10,000.
A 2018 study done by the National Institute of Health found that on average, women reported pregnancy awareness around five and a half weeks. As it applies to the study, this means an average pregnant woman would have a very slim margin to make a decision and appointment under the new Texas law.
Nearly 90% of women who are seeking abortions in the state are past their sixth week, abortion rights advocates in Texas told ABC News Thursday.
The Supreme Court formally refused to block the Texas abortion law Wednesday night, citing technical and procedural reasons.
In a 5-4 decision, five conservative-leaning justices voted to let the law remain in effect, without determining if it is constitutional.
For now, most women seeking abortions in Texas have been forced to do so in other states.
Rebecca Tong, who operates an abortion clinic in neighboring Oklahoma, said she’s become inundated with out-of-state calls.
“The phones have just been ridiculous,” said Tong, co-executive director of Trust Women. “About two-thirds of our call volume right now is Texas people.”
Tong said her average schedule consists of appointments for about 15 women a day. Since the law in Texas, the number has more than doubled.
“For a five to 10 minute procedure, to drive 600 miles in the middle of a pandemic,” she said. “It’s cruel.”
(WASHINGTON) — After the U.S. Supreme Court made it official, declining to block Texas’ ban on nearly all abortions in the state, advocates for abortion providers vowed their legal battle would continue until full access to the procedure is restored.
“We will keep fighting. We are not giving up,” said lead attorney Marc Hearron, senior counsel with the Center for Reproductive Rights. “We’re evaluating all options.”
Indeed, the case against Texas law SB8 remains active at the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling early Thursday did not directly address questions of the law’s constitutionality.
“It may well be that sooner rather than later, a judge does reach the merits, finds the law unconstitutional and restores abortion access in Texas, at least temporarily,” said Kate Shaw, constitutional law professor at Cardozo School of Law and ABC News legal contributor.
President Biden meanwhile ordered his legal team to immediately explore possible steps the federal government could take to restore abortion access in Texas. And, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi vowed to hold a vote next week codifying abortion rights in federal law.
But despite the scramble on multiple fronts, restoration of abortion rights in Texas is not expected to happen quickly, experts say.
“The law will likely be in effect for months, at a minimum,” said Mary Ziegler, an expert in the history of U.S. abortion law and professor at Florida State University College of Law.
Both sides in the dispute credit SB8’s unusual construction — delegating enforcement of the law to the populace at large – private citizens — as hamstringing intervention by federal courts.
“It’s an ingenious law,” Ziegler said. “This is exactly what its drafters intended.”
The arrangement makes it difficult to determine procedurally whom exactly abortion rights advocates are challenging, and therefore difficult for a court to determine whom to address in the dispute. Texas abortion providers named state officials and state courts in their federal case – but neither group technically enforces SB8.
“Federal courts enjoy the power to enjoin individuals tasked with enforcing laws, not the laws themselves,” the court’s conservative majority explained in its order declining to intervene.
The most likely next phase in the legal battle, experts said, may come when a Texas resident files a civil lawsuit under SB8 against someone accused of “aiding or abetting” an unlawful abortion, such as a doctor or clinic worker.
“At that point, [the defendant] will say that he can’t be held liable because the law is unconstitutional under [the Supreme Court’s 1992 precedent Planned Parenthood v. Casey] because it imposes an ‘undue burden’ on a woman’s constitutional right to obtain an abortion,” said Sarah Isgur, a former Justice Department lawyer, host of the Advisory Opinions podcast and ABC News legal contributor. “And the [defendant] will win and the law will be struck down.”
That scenario — an abortion provider getting sued, and likely winning on the merits — presents its own complications, advocates said.
“If you’re a physician … every time you apply for a license, the same question comes up on applications: have you ever had a lawsuit filed against you? Even if these frivolous lawsuits are dismissed, these physicians will have to report them for the rest of their careers,” said Amy Hagstrom Miller, CEO of Whole Women’s Health, a leading abortion provider in Texas.
The provider might also end up being stuck with a giant legal bill with no recourse if the defense is unsuccessful, Miller added.
“The question is, what is lost in the meantime?” said Shaw. “At the moment it seems as though access to the constitutionally protected right to an abortion is functionally unavailable in Texas, and even if that’s only for a short time, until a judge actually has the opportunity to enjoin the law, the stakes are constitutionally extremely high.”
Clinics across Texas on Thursday reported having to turn away women seeking abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, and in some cases, referring those who were able to afford the time and expense of travel to visit clinics in neighboring states.
“Many Texans — and disproportionately people of color and people with low incomes — will be forced to carry pregnancies to term against their will,” said Adriana Piñon, policy counsel and senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Texas. “This is especially horrific given the severe maternal mortality crisis in Texas that has impacted Black women the most.”
For women across Texas, implementation of SB8 has functionally meant suspension of longstanding constitutionally-protected rights affirmed by Supreme Court precedent in the 1973 Roe v. Wade and 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision.
However, legal scholars across the spectrum cautioned it was too soon to declare the precedents dead.
“This case has nothing to do with Roe or Casey so far,” said Isgur. “In November, the court is hearing the Dobbs case, which involves a 15-week abortion ban out of Mississippi. That case actually challenges the Casey standard—[prohibiting] what is an ‘undue burden’ [on women]–and could change abortion law in the country.”
Ziegler agreed that the precedents themselves remain substantively untouched, for now, but said the tone and approach of the court’s conservative majority in rejecting a hold on the Texas law was telling.
“The writing is on the wall,” she said.
“It’s important to underscore the court’s ruling last night was not the final word on this law,” said Shaw, “[but] long term picture with this very conservative Supreme Court is certainly not a favorable one for abortion rights.”
“The responsible course of action would have been to enjoin the Texas law while the Mississippi law was under consideration. Instead, the court’s hostility to abortion has led it to approve a law that is not only plainly unconstitutional, but a threat to the social fabric and to the rule of law,” Shaw added.
The court has not yet set a date for oral arguments in the Dobbs case but is expected to decide on the constitutionality of state bans on pre-viability abortions before the end of June 2022.
(DALLAS) — Marsha Jones, a Texas native, says she has received many desperate calls from women in the state struggling to access abortions and reproductive care.
They are often young, alone and afraid, she said.
“We’re talking about young women who live in some of the most dire communities,” Jones told ABC News, recounting stories of women who came to her for help, including a pregnant teenager whose mother was addicted to drugs and a young woman who was in an abusive relationship.
Jones is the CEO of the Afiya Center in Dallas — an organization that advocates for Black women and girls. The center provides practical assistance to women seeking abortions by providing funding for sonograms, transportation, childcare, hotels, meals and other services.
Now, under a new Texas law, Jones and others who assist women in getting access to abortions say they have become targets themselves.
The law will make most abortions illegal after six weeks of pregnancy and will encourage anyone to sue a person they believe is providing an abortion or assisting someone in getting an abortion after six weeks, which is before many women learn that they are pregnant.
“It’s almost like they have put a bounty on those of us — people like us — and others, and even our donors, who want to make sure that people have access to reproductive health care and [that] includes abortion,” Jones said. “So now you have just people on the street, who can now sue us, attack us in all these kinds of ways, and with that, it almost ties our hands, because how much can we do if we are being sued every day?”
S.B. 8, which was signed by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, went into effect on Wednesday and the U.S. Supreme Court formally rejected a request by Texas abortion providers to block it while legal challenges continue.
But despite S.B. 8, Jones said she and her team will not stop working to help women.
“We’re going to continue working at the Afiya Center,” Jones said, adding that through educational programs, they hope to help young women “understand their reproductive system” so they can become aware of pregnancies before they reach six weeks.
According to an August study by The Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive rights organization, S.B. 8 will lead to shutting down a large swath of abortion clinics across the state and will increase the average one-way driving distance to an abortion clinic by twenty-fold — from 12 miles to 248 miles.
This disproportionately impacts low-income women and women of color, who do not have the financial means to travel.
Marcela Howell, who leads a coalition of eight organizations led by Black women that advocate for reproductive justice across the country, including the Afiya Center, told ABC News that S.B. 8 is the latest chapter in a history of legislation that has disproportionately hurt women of color
“Roe v. Wade promised the right to abortion, but for Black women who have to rely on Medicaid or who don’t have insurance coverage at all, and have to find money to get abortion services, that right has never been exercised, it’s always had barriers to it,” Howell said.
Howell, who leads In Our Own Voice: National Black Women’s Reproductive Justice Agenda, said that a disproportionate number of Black women live in low-income households and rely on Medicaid, which cannot be used for abortion access under the Hyde Amendment.
Jones said that even when low income women in Texas are able to get financial aid through abortion funds to cover the cost of the procedure, many still don’t have access to care because they cannot afford related travel costs, childcare or other medical costs like sonograms.
And these barriers, according to Jones, take time to resolve and are part of the reason many women can’t get an abortion before six weeks gestation — the restriction under S.B. 8.
“We are forcing people into generational poverty, we are forcing women to stay inside of homes, houses, spaces where their lives are on the line,” Jones said.
“When we make this a political or religious right argument, we are allowing a very small segment of the community, of the country to make decisions for the majority that they have no business making, because they do not know these people’s lived experiences,” she added.
(WASHINGTON) — President Joe Biden says he is launching a “whole-of-government effort” in response to the Supreme Court allowing the nation’s most restrictive abortion law to take effect in Texas, directing his Gender Policy Council and the White House legal team to tap federal agencies to ensure women maintain their constitutional right to an abortion.
“While the Chief Justice was clear to stress that the action by the Supreme Court is not a final ruling on the future of Roe, the impact of last night’s decision will be immediate and requires an immediate response,” Biden said in a statement on Thursday.
“Hence, I am directing that Council and the Office of the White House Counsel to launch a whole-of-government effort to respond to this decision, looking specifically to the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Justice to see what steps the Federal Government can take to ensure that women in Texas have access to safe and legal abortions as protected by Roe, and what legal tools we have to insulate women and providers from the impact of Texas’ bizarre scheme of outsourced enforcement to private parties,” the statement said.
Attorney General Merrick Garland also said in a statement on Thursday that the Justice Department is “deeply concerned” about the Texas law, known as SB 8, and is “evaluating all options to protect the constitutional rights of women, including access to an abortion.”
The Supreme Court in a 5-4 vote Wednesday night formally rejected a request by Texas abortion providers to block the state’s severe new law restricting the procedure while legal challenges continue. Most abortions in Texas are now illegal after six weeks of pregnancy, and private citizens — who do not have to be Texas residents — are encouraged to sue a person they believe is providing an abortion outside the new parameters or assisting a woman in getting one, whether they are a rape counselor or an Uber driver taking a woman to a clinic.
Biden said the SCOTUS decision “unleashes constitutional chaos and empowers self-anointed enforcers to have devastating impacts” and that the law will now “significantly impair women’s access to the health care they need, particularly for communities of color and individuals with low incomes.”
“This law is so extreme it does not even allow for exceptions in the case of rape or incest. And it not only empowers complete strangers to inject themselves into the most private of decisions made by a woman—it actually incentivizes them to do so with the prospect of $10,000 if they win their case,” Biden’s statement said. “For the majority to do this without a hearing, without the benefit of an opinion from a court below, and without due consideration of the issues, insults the rule of law and the rights of all Americans to seek redress from our courts.”
White House press secretary Jen Psaki said at a briefing on Wednesday that the president would continue to call for the “codification of Roe” through Congress, but Biden’s statement did not make mention of that call.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi echoed Biden’s anger on Thursday, calling the court’s decision “cowardly” and vowing to bring up the Women’s Health Protection Act, which would codify Roe v. Wade, to a vote.
“The Supreme Court’s cowardly, dark-of-night decision to uphold a flagrantly unconstitutional assault on women’s rights and health is staggering,” she said in a statement. “Upon our return, the House will bring up Congresswoman Judy Chu’s Women’s Health Protection Act to enshrine into law reproductive health care for all women across America.”
The House is scheduled to return from recess on Sept. 20., but that vote will be symbolic given that Democrats don’t have 60 votes to pass the bill in the Senate or 51 votes to change Senate rules to allow its passage over GOP opposition.
The Supreme Court’s decision has prompted progressive Democrats to renew their calls for changes to the Senate’s filibuster rules — and legislation that would expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court.
“We need to restore balance to the court after Donald Trump and Senator Mitch McConnell blatantly stole the seats of Justice Scalise and Justice Ginsburg,” Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., said in a statement.
Advocates are also concerned about other states implementing laws similar to the one in Texas.
Nancy Northrop, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, told CNN on Wednesday she expects the Supreme Court decision will embolden states “to completely ignore Roe V. Wade.”
While the majority of state legislatures are not currently in session, about 70 bills attempting to ban all or most abortions were introduced this year, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks state-level sexual and reproductive health bills. Eight of those bills were enacted, including two in Texas (one of which was SB 8), as well as six others in Arkansas, Idaho, Oklahoma and South Carolina.
Seven other laws either haven’t gone into effect yet, including several that would ban abortions only if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, or have been temporarily blocked by the courts.
Florida, for example, is not in session, but at least one state representative, congressional candidate Anthony Sabatini, has promised to introduce the “exact same” bill as Texas’ in the Sunshine State.
He told ABC News on Thursday the bill is being drafted. Florida Senate President Wilton Simpson told WFLA News that the Florida legislature would take up a bill similar to the Texas law in the next session.
More than six in 10 Americans say they agree with the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decisions establishing a woman’s right to an abortion, according to a national Quinnipiac poll from May, a view that has remained consistent in the nearly two decades Quinnipiac has polled on this issue, it said. In 2003, Americans agreed with the Roe decision 62-35%.
Amy Hagstrom Miller, CEO of Whole Women’s Health which operates four clinics in Texas, told ABC News her team is not giving up the fight to ensure women in Texas have access to reproductive health care.
“At this moment we are in an unprecedented and complicated situation,” she said, “but we are sure of one thing — our vales, our commitment and what we stand for has not changed.”
ABC News’ Devin Dwyer, Benjamin Siegel, Alex Mallin, Quinn Scanlan and Oren Oppenheim contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy on Tuesday warned dozens of communications companies against cooperating with the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 Capitol attack, saying that Republicans “will not forget” it if they retake the House.
His broadside was immediately criticized by Democrats and ethics experts, who accused him of violating House ethics rules and likened the statement to tampering with the congressional investigation.
Democrats’ “attempts to strong-arm private companies to turn over individuals’ private data would put every American with a phone or computer in the crosshairs of a surveillance state run by Democrat politicians,” McCarthy said in a statement posted to Twitter.
The select committee asked 35 companies on Monday to preserve records that could be relevant to its investigation into the Capitol attack and “efforts to delay or interfere” with the transfer of power after the 2020 election, which could be a precursor to more targeted subpoenas compelling the production of records.
Jan. 6 committee asks companies to preserve phone records from GOP lawmakers, Trump aides
While the requests didn’t mention any individuals by name, the select committee is expected to focus its inquiry on GOP lawmakers who communicated with former President Donald Trump on and around Jan. 6 regarding the election, along with the president’s close aides and family members.
McCarthy, whose own conversations with Trump were highlighted during the second impeachment trial, could be of interest to the panel’s investigation.
“This is very unusual for a member of Congress, especially someone in a leadership role in the House, to try to intervene and prevent a congressional committee from trying to do its job,” Craig Holman, a lobbyist for the nonpartisan watchdog group Public Citizen, told ABC News.
“By demanding that no one participate with the select committee, he is undermining the credibility of Congress itself,” he said, suggesting that McCarthy’s comments were in violation of House Rule 23, which requires members to “behave at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House.”
Holman said Public Citizen would consider filing a complaint against McCarthy with the Office of Congressional Ethics, the independent congressional ethics office, should no member ask the House Ethics Committee to consider the matter directly. That office could refer its review to the ethics panel, which could decide whether to investigate the matter further or sanction McCarthy.
In his statement, McCarthy also accused Democrats of asking companies to violate federal law, though his office did not respond to questions from ABC News asking for the specific statute he referenced.
“It’s not illegal for the select committee to request that the companies preserve the records, and to demand that the records be turned over under subpoena if the committee can produce sufficient evidence to warrant that action,” Holman said.
In response to McCarthy, the select committee said it had asked companies “not to destroy records” that could aid in its inquiry, and that the panel “won’t be deterred by those who want to whitewash or cover up the events of January 6th, or obstruct our investigation.”
“To me, that’s pretty straight-up intimidation and obstruction,” Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., a former prosecutor who served as an impeachment manager after the Jan. 6 attack, told ABC News. “It’s the congressional equivalent of ‘snitches get stitches.’ That’s kind of what he’s telling them.”
Zach Wamp, a former GOP congressman from Tennessee who co-chairs the Reformers Caucus for Issue One, a government reform advocacy group, criticized his former colleague’s statement.
“It’s not in his best interest or the right thing to do,” Wamp said of McCarthy. “You can’t have an investigation without knowing who talked to who, and when.”
“There are Republicans who may have things to hide, but it’s not Kevin McCarthy,” he said.
“If this turns into a really broad request not tied to individuals, there are Fourth Amendment concerns,” Jonathan Bydlak, the director of the Governance Program at the R Street Institute, told ABC News. “But I don’t think that’s what we’re talking about right now.”
Bydlak noted that McCarthy, as the top House Republican vote counter in 2013, was among the majority of House members to oppose an amendment restricting the National Security Agency’s collection of phone records.
“When you compare what he’s saying now to the opposition he’s expressed in the past to NSA collection of bulk metadata, it’s really hard to not come to the conclusion that these remarks are being driven by partisan concerns, and not ideological and principled concerns about government access to private data,” Bydlak said.
Other Republican lawmakers have also bristled at the panel’s preservation request.
“There weren’t any text messages that I can recall with the President of the United States. Certainly, I communicate with other congressmen on a regular basis,” Rep. Mo Brooks, R-Alabama, who strategized with other Republicans at the White House about how to derail the Jan. 6 electoral vote count, told Newsmax.
Brooks, who is running for Senate, encouraged Trump supporters to “start taking down names and kicking a**” and asked if they were ready to “fight for America” at a rally outside the White House on Jan. 6. He later said he was not encouraging violence.
“I haven’t gone over those text messages but I assume on one side or the other there are some caustic words used to describe what is going on in our country … but those are private communications,” Brooks told Newsmax.
Separately, Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., was named the vice-chair of the select committee on Thursday, a move meant to further highlight the panel’s bipartisan cooperation as it expands its investigation.
“Representative Cheney has demonstrated again and again her commitment to getting answers about January 6th, ensuring accountability, and doing whatever it takes to protect democracy for the American people,” Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., who appointed Cheney to the role, said in a statement.
The announcement comes as Cheney faces another attempt to expel her from the House Republican conference: A group of House Freedom Caucus members have asked for GOP leaders to amend party rules to remove Cheney and Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Illinois, from the House Republican conference for serving on the panel with seven Democrats as the majority of Republicans boycotted the committee.
“We will not be deterred by threats or attempted obstruction and we will not rest until our task is complete,” Cheney said in a statement Thursday after her new title was announced.
(RICHMOND, Va.) — Abortion rights is shaping up to be a core issue in Virginia gubernatorial nominee Terry McAuliffe’s campaign, amplified after the nation’s most restrictive abortion ban took effect in Texas on Wednesday.
The former Democratic governor is now targeting Republican opponent Glenn Youngkin again over their different positions on the issue.
“The stakes are huge. … For years, we’ve said, abortion could be outlawed. Well, it happened today,” McAuliffe told ABC News in an interview. “I vetoed every bill that would have stood in the way of women making their own decisions. And, you know, I’ve vetoed bills that would have defunded Planned Parenthood. I stopped all their nonsense. But it’s a battle here in Virginia. We’re not going back.”
The new Texas law, which outlaws abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy, went into effect Wednesday after the Supreme Court declined to immediately weigh in on state abortion providers’ emergency request to block it. And late Wednesday night, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court formally rejected the request by Texas abortion providers to block the law.
While 12 other states have attempted to similarly outlaw first-trimester abortions, legal challenges have prevented those laws from taking effect, making Texas’ law the most restrictive abortion ban in the country.
In addition to being “first and foremost,” a threat to women’s health, McAuliffe also said it’s an economic issue, telling ABC News that “draconian laws” like Texas’ are “absolutely devastating” to the economy.
“It’s an absolute killer to one’s economy. … I called my head of economic development today. I said, ‘Call HP, call Dell, call American Airlines, move ’em to Virginia,'” McAuliffe said, listing off major companies headquartered in Virginia. “Nobody wants to be in a state that discriminates, tells women what to do with their body. … Glenn Youngkin would destroy the Virginia economy.”
At an event in Tysons Corner hosted by Virginia Free Wednesday, Youngkin was asked by a reporter what he thought about the Texas abortion bill. He first deflected, saying his “biggest concern when it comes to abortion in Virginia is my opponent’s extreme view,” going on to attempt to tie him to current Gov. Ralph Northam.
Northam, a physician, came under fire in January 2019 for comments he made in which he seemed to imagine a scenario where an abortion would be performed when an infant was about to be born. He was responding to a question about a proposed bill that would allow for a third-trimester abortion to be performed under select circumstances with a single doctor’s opinion, and said he was speaking of a rare hypothetical. Virginia only allows abortions after the second trimester in select circumstances when multiple doctors agree the woman’s life or health is significantly endangered, something his spokesperson pointed out, accusing Republicans of “trying to play politics.”
After further pressing, Youngkin said, “I’ve said it from the beginning of this campaign — I’m pro-life. I believe in exceptions in the case of rape, and in case of incest and in case of where the mother’s life is in jeopardy.”
The law in Texas does not include exceptions for rape or incest.
Abortion rights first took center-stage in Virginia’s gubernatorial race — one of only two gubernatorial contests held this year — in early July when a liberal online publication published a video, surreptitiously recorded by liberal activist Lauren Windsor, of Youngkin reportedly at a June fundraising event in Loudoun County calling himself “staunchly unabashedly pro-life” but saying he cannot openly discuss the issue because he needs to win over independents.
When an off-camera questioner asks Youngkin if he would defund Planned Parenthood or “take it to the abortionists,” Youngkin replies, “I’m gonna be really honest with you, the short answer is in this campaign I can’t.”
“When I’m governor, and I have a majority in the House, we can start going on offense. But as a campaign topic, sadly, that in fact won’t win my independent votes that I have to get. So you’ll never hear me support Planned Parenthood. What you’ll hear me talk about is actually taking back the radical abortion policies that Virginians don’t want,” he said in the recording, as published by The American Independent.
In a statement to ABC News regarding that video, Youngkin campaign spokesman Matt Wolking said, “Glenn Youngkin tells everyone he meets the same thing: he can’t wait to go on offense for the people of Virginia by building a rip-roaring economy, creating more jobs with bigger paychecks, restoring excellence in education, prioritizing public safety, and making Virginia the best place in America to live, work, and raise a family. This deceptively recorded audio demonstrates that Glenn Youngkin says the same thing no matter who he is talking to, unlike Terry McAuliffe who knowingly makes false allegations and decides what to say based on whatever poll is in front of him.”
McAuliffe’s campaign used news coverage and part of that recording in an ad that hit Virginians’ televisions last week. On Tuesday, the campaign launched another abortion-focused TV ad. Both ads hit Youngkin over his “far right agenda.”
Early voting for Virginia’s Nov. 2 off-year election starts Sept. 17. The gubernatorial race is a critical test for Democrats in the post-Trump era. Democrats have made significant inroads in what used to be a key presidential battleground. Not only did the party gain a government trifecta in 2019 by gaining majorities in both legislative chambers, but voters rejected former President Donald Trump last year by nearly double the margin they did in 2016.
McAuliffe has pitched himself by promising to build on the progress he believes Virginia’s made, starting with his first term. But Youngkin, a former private equity executive and political newcomer, argues the commonwealth needs a change in leadership and that longtime politician McAuliffe is “pushing a failed partisan agenda.”
“The only thing we have to do differently is everything. Because to fix what is broken, we can’t settle for half measures. We need a whole new approach,” Youngkin said at a campaign rally in Fairfax Monday where he unveiled his “Day One Plan.”
Despite Democratic gains, polls show the race is competitive. A Monmouth poll out Tuesday showed McAuliffe with a slight lead over Youngkin among registered voters, 47% to 42%, but Youngkin held an edge among independents, 44% to 38%.
While the Monmouth poll showed Youngkin leads among voters who describe themselves as being more enthusiastic in this year’s race compared with past contests, abortion rights could galvanize voters on both sides of the debate. Given the demographic shifts in the commonwealth, that enthusiasm may aid McAuliffe more.
“The Supreme Court has just given Terry McAuliffe a gift two weeks before early voting starts,” said Larry Sabato, the founder and director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics and a longtime watcher of the commonwealth’s politics. “The problem for Youngkin is that Virginia is decidedly pro-choice, especially in vote-rich Northern Virginia. Independents are mainly pro-choice, too.”
Sabato said abortion has mattered in past Virginia elections, usually in Democrats’ favor. He cited 2013’s gubernatorial race, when McAuliffe won by a slim 2.5-point margin. Also bolstering the Democrats, Sabato said, is the “growing belief” that the conservative Supreme Court is moving toward overturning Roe v. Wade.
However, he added, “It isn’t all bad for Youngkin. He’ll run up the score in conservative pro-life rural areas using this issue. It’s just that rural areas don’t pack the electoral punch they once did.”
(WASHINGTON) — In a 5-4 decision Wednesday night, The U.S. Supreme Court formally rejected a request by Texas abortion providers to block the state’s severe new law restricting the procedure while legal challenges continue.
The law will make most abortions illegal after six weeks of pregnancy and encourage anyone to sue a person they believe is providing an abortion or assisting someone in getting an abortion after six weeks.
The unsigned order from the court said the providers had “raised serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law at issue” but added “their application also presents complex and novel antecedent procedural questions” that they were unable to resolve.
Specifically, the Court questioned whether the state officials sued in this case were the proper targets, since they don’t enforce the Texas law, and whether state courts could also be properly ordered by the justices to refuse cases under S.B. 8.
“In reaching this conclusion, we stress that we do not purport to resolve definitively any jurisdictional or substantive claim in the applicants’ lawsuit,” the court said. “In particular, this order is not based on any conclusion about the constitutionality of Texas’ law, and in no way limits other procedurally proper challenges to the Texas law, including in Texas state courts.”
Chief Justice John Roberts joined Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan in dissenting from the move.
Calling the Texas law “unprecedented” in its design, Roberts said he would have moved to preserve the status quo at least temporarily.
“I would grant preliminary relief to preserve the status quo ante—before the law went into effect—so that the courts may consider whether a state can avoid responsibility for its laws in such a manner. Defendants argue that existing doctrines preclude judicial intervention, and they may be correct,” he wrote. “But the consequences of approving the state action, both in this particular case and as a model for action in other areas, counsel at least preliminary judicial consideration before the program devised by the State takes effect.”
Kagan passionately called out her colleagues for allowing a sweeping ban on abortion “in clear and indeed undisputed conflict with Roe and Casey” without a more fulsome legal process.
“The majority has acted without any guidance from the Court of Appeals—which is right now considering the same issues. It has reviewed only the most cursory party submissions, and then only hastily. And it barely bothers to explain its conclusion—that a challenge to an obviously unconstitutional abortion regulation backed by a wholly unprecedented enforcement scheme is unlikely to prevail,” she wrote. “In all these ways, the majority’s decision is emblematic of too much of this Court’s shadowdocket decisionmaking—which every day becomes more unreasoned, inconsistent, and impossible to defend. I respectfully dissent.”
Sotomayor blasted the court’s decision as “stunning,” calling the Texas law a “breathtaking act of defiance—of the Constitution, of this Court’s precedents, and of the rights of women seeking abortions throughout Texas.”
“Presented with an application to enjoin a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineered to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny, a majority of Justices have opted to bury their heads in the sand,” she wrote.
“Last night, the Court silently acquiesced in a State’s enactment of a law that flouts nearly 50 years of federal precedents,” she wrote. “Because the Court’s failure to act rewards tactics designed to avoid judicial review and inflicts significant harm on the applicants and on women seeking abortions in Texas, I dissent.”
Breyer, who has authored several major opinions upholding the rights of women to obtain abortion services, said the court had a clear obligation to intervene to prevent violation of clearly-established constitutional rights.
“I recognize that Texas’s law delegates the State’s power to prevent abortions not to one person (such as a district attorney) or to a few persons (such as a group of government officials or private citizens) but to any person. But I do not see why that fact should make a critical legal difference,” he said. “That delegation still threatens to invade a constitutional right, and the coming into effect of that delegation still threatens imminent harm.”
Texas is the first and only state in the country to outlaw abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. Twelve other states have passed similar early-term bans that have not yet taken effect due to legal challenges. The controversial law also raises strong questions about the future of the 1972 landmark Roe v. Wade abortion rights decision.
Following the court’s decision Wednesday, Amy Hagstrom Miller, the CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights tweeted, “We are devastated by today’s ruling. Our patients are scared and confused and desperately trying to figure out what they can do to get an abortion. We don’t know what will happen next. Our staff and providers are so afraid…”
