No Republicans have spoken out so far about Feinstein’s request for a temporary replacement on the Judiciary Committee, where her absence has hobbled Democrats’ ability to confirm President Joe Biden’s judicial picks. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office also offered no word on the matter Wednesday night.
But the GOP has plenty of members eager to continue blocking those Biden nominees, so it’s unclear how willing they’ll be to help Democrats solve their Feinstein problem.
The senior California senator also sits on the Senate Intelligence, Appropriations and Rules Committees, though she limited her request for a short-term replacement to her seat on Judiciary.
In his statement acknowledging Feinstein’s now-murky path to returning to the Senate, Judiciary panel chief Sen. Dick Durbin’s (D-Ill.) spokesperson didn’t acknowledge her request to be replaced.
“Sen. Durbin wishes Sen. Feinstein well as she continues to recover. And he looks forward to continuing the important work of moving judicial nominees through the Committee when the Senate reconvenes,” said Emily Hampsten.
Meanwhile, some House Democrats are starting to say the quiet part out loud — calling on Feinstein to resign after POLITICO reported on Wednesday that people who have visited with Feinstein in recent weeks or been briefed on her status say her shingles diagnosis appears to have taken a heavy toll.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who serves as co-chair of Rep. Barbara Lee’s (D-Calif.) 2024 Senate campaign to replace Feinstein, said the current California senator should resign because “it is obvious she can no longer fulfill her duties.”
And quote-tweeting Khanna,Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.) agreed, calling it a “dereliction of duty” for Feinstein “to remain in the Senate and a dereliction of duty for those who agree to remain quiet.”
Yet some female lawmakers, including former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), are urging the party to give Feinstein space to end her long career on her terms.
Rep. Norma Torres (D-Calif.) tweeted a wish for Feinstein to get well soon and added: “When women age or get sick, the men are quick to push them aside. When men age or get sick, they get a promotion.”
Separately, Pelosi told reporters, “She deserves the respect to get well and be back on duty and it’s interesting to me, I don’t know what political agendas are at work, that are going after Sen. Feinstein in that way.”
Feinstein confidants underscored that they are still hopeful she could serve out the nearly two years that remain in her term. But neither of those two people, who addressed the sensitive matter on condition of anonymity, indicated they were confident she would be able to do so from Washington.
And Democrats may soon face another problem with their senior California senator: Regardless of whether she’s replaced on the Judiciary panel, her absence from the floor leaves them in a tough spot with a 51-49 majority.
Ryan Lizza contributed to this report.
[ad_2]
#Democrats #Feinsteins #perilous #absence
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
“It’s a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that we have to take advantage of,” state Sen. London Lamar, a Democrat who represents parts of Memphis, said in an interview.
A blue turnaround in Tennessee seemed like a pipe dream just a few weeks ago — and maybe still does. Democrats are outnumbered, out-resourced and hamstrung by a legislative map drawn to favor Republicans. It’s also a state that suffers from one of the lowest voter turnouts in the country.
Party insiders and organizers are the first to concede just how bad they have it.
“Nothing changes the fact that these districts are highly gerrymandered,” said Lisa Quigley, a former chief of staff to Rep. Jim Cooper, a Tennessee Democrat who didn’t seek reelection after his district was effectively eliminated in redistricting last year. “It’s going to take some really smart organizing all over the state, because none of us vote very well.”
But if there was ever a moment when the party stood a chance, it’s now. The state Democratic Party has been flooded with donations and interest since the GOP started moving against three Democrats for participating in a gun safety protest on the state House floor, and ultimately expelling two of them last week for violating decorum rules. Their stunt angered Republicans who wanted to see them promptly punished, invoking a rare removal process marked by its partisanship and accusations of racism.
Former Gov. Phil Bredesen, the last Democrat to hold statewide office in Tennessee, called the GOP vote “a great overreaction.”
“I always thought one of the principles of leadership is to be careful. You can have fights, but don’t make martyrs,” Bredesen, who served until 2011, said in an interview. “Apparently Republicans missed that concept.”
Most Republicans have avoided commenting on the spectacle outside of last week’s removal proceedings, where they admonished the Democrats for disrupting the process. House Speaker Cameron Sexton, during a radio interview, called the floor protest to an “insurrection” akin to the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.
“Their actions are and will always be unacceptable, and they break several rules of decorum and procedure on the House floor,” Sexton said on Twitter early last week. “Their actions and beliefs that they could be arrested on the House floor were an effort, unfortunately, to make themselves the victims.”
Sexton, a longtime lawmaker believed to have aspirations for governor, has not tweeted since.
On the day that state Reps. Justin Jones and Justin Pearson, two Black millennial freshmen, were kicked out of the Legislature, 33,000 people called into the state party office looking to get involved, Democratic Party Chair Hendrell Remus said. So far, nearly 10,000 have signed up to volunteer, he said in an interview, and hundreds of people have expressed interest in running for office — many in districts where Republican lawmakers ran unopposed in the midterms. More than half of Republican lawmakers serving in the statehouse today were uncontested in November.
Democrats are targeting a handful of competitive districts where they believe strong candidates can pick off Republican incumbents. Those include the newly drawn 5th Congressional District encompassing parts of Nashville, which Rep. Andy Ogles won last year.
They have their eye on state legislative districts outside Memphis, Knoxville and Clarksville. Long term, the party sees opportunities around the southern suburbs of Nashville in Rutherford County.
Democrats are also placing their hopes on winning a lawsuit challenging the new redistricting maps, where they say a victory would create much-needed political openings.
“Had we not been gerrymandered to shreds, then this supermajority couldn’t have existed to be able to expel our members,” Remus said.
Jones triumphantly returned to the Legislature on Tuesday, leading a march of more than 1,000 people to the Capitol steps after being reinstated by the Nashville city council. Pearson is expected to be reinstated to his seat on Wednesday and return to work the following day.
Jones, Pearson and Rep. Gloria Johnson, the third Democratic lawmaker who participated in the same floor protest but escaped expulsion by a single vote, together represent a new class of elected officials in Tennessee. They’ve come from activist circles and push progressive causes like criminal justice reform, gun safety and climate change. Organizers are aiming to recruit more candidates in that model.
“They are the least favorable Democrats in the House and they have created the most change and impact for being themselves,” said Tequila Johnson, executive director for the Equity Alliance, a grassroots group focused on increasing civic engagement in Black communities.
After his return to the Legislature on Tuesday, Jones thanked Republicans for “awakening the people of this state,” particularly young people.
“No expulsion, no attempt to silence us will stop us but only galvanize and strengthen our movement,” Jones said to loud cheers from his supporters packing the galleries.
[ad_2]
#Tennessee #Democrats #lifetime #shot #relevance
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
Now, senators, representatives, state officials and advocacy groups are calling on President Joe Biden to defy the U.S. District Court judge and use his executive powers to protect the drugs’ availability even before the case is heard by the conservative-leaning 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
“I believe the Food and Drug Administration has the authority to ignore this ruling, which is why I’m again calling on President Biden and the FDA to do just that,” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said Friday. “The FDA, doctors, and pharmacies can and must go about their jobs like nothing has changed and keep mifepristone accessible to women across America. If they don’t, the consequences of banning the most common method of abortion in every single state will be devastating.”
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) backed Wyden’s call in a CNN interview Friday, arguing that the “deeply partisan and unfounded nature” of the court’s decision undermines its own legitimacy and the White House should “ignore” it.
But the Biden administration is afraid any public defiance of the Friday-night ruling could hurt its position while the case moves through the appeals process.
A person who is advising the White House on legal strategy, granted anonymity to discuss the ongoing litigation, said administration officials think it would be “premature” and “pretty risky” to take the step Wyden is calling for, because it’s possible a higher court would reverse the decision by Texas U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmayrk.
“They’re able to present themselves right now as the adults in the room who care about the rule of law,” the person said. “But that posture would come under pressure if they jumped out of the gate and said they wouldn’t abide by the ruling.”
The person added that the White House sees limited benefit in publicly defying the court’s ruling at this juncture for three reasons:
First, ignoring a lower court ruling stripping FDA approval of the pills wouldn’t stop GOP-controlled states from imposing their own restrictions and prosecuting those who violate them. Second, a future Republican president could reverse any decision on enforcement discretion and choose to aggressively prosecute those who sell or prescribe the pills. And third, even in the short term, the president defying the court could leave doctors across the country afraid to dispense the pills.
“It’s a very, very loose Band Aid that wouldn’t actually ensure access to medication abortion,” the person said. “And when you have another option on the table like the appeals process, it’s a pretty risky strategy.”
Additionally, the person said, because the Texas judge put his ruling on hold for one week to give the Biden administration time to appeal, the pills can still be legally prescribed in much of the country, limiting the urgency to take such a drastic action.
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) told reporters on a call Saturday that while she is sympathetic to Wyden’s position, she doesn’t endorse anything that could jeopardize the administration’s fight to overturn the district court ruling.
“I get the sentiment, because this is a truly infuriating situation,” she said. “This outrageous decision had nothing to do with the facts or science or the law. But the key thing that needs to happen right now is making sure this decision is quickly appealed and reversed in court.”
Murray and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer on Saturday signaled their intent to use the decision to mobilize their base in the 2024 elections — arguing that flipping the House and passing a law restoring Roe v. Wade is the best path to achieving more permanent protections for the pills than whatever temporary protections the Biden administration could offer through executive actions.
“This battle is going to be fought with public opinion and with our votes at the ballot box, from here until we move forward in 2024,” Murray said.
Schumer suggested Democrats will force votes in Senate in the coming months that “put Republicans on the record” on the issue.
“The American people will see for themselves the stark contrast between Democrats who are relentlessly fighting for women’s rights, to make decisions about their own bodies and MAGA Republicans who will stop at virtually nothing to enact a national abortion ban with no exceptions,” Schumer told reporters on Saturday.
Biden himself appeared to endorse this strategy in the hours after the ruling, saying in a statement that while the administration was appealing the case, “The only way to stop those who are committed to taking away women’s rights and freedoms in every state is to elect a Congress who will pass a law restoring Roe versus Wade.”
Even some abortion-rights leaders who have previously criticized the Biden administration for not doing enough to protect access say they support the wait-and-see strategy given the current judicial threats to the pills.
“They do tend to be cautious,” NARAL President Mini Timmaraju told POLITICO. “But with stakes like this, with these courts, they should be. They’re the defendant. We want them to be careful. Also, it has served them well in the past. So I feel confident the administration is doing what they need to do.”
Some legal experts are also warning the administration against defying the decision this early in the process, saying doing so could create a precedent that gives future presidents cover to ignore “future orders that would be more firmly rooted in the law.”
“It would not be advisable for the FDA to disregard a court order even if they believe it’s wrong,” said Joanne Rosen, an attorney and senior lecturer at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. “They could appeal. They could re-initiate the approval process of mifepristone all over again to get it back on the market.”
Yet others in the legal community are urging the administration to play hardball, arguing that the FDA was given enforcement discretion by Congress and previous court rulings and the agency should use those to the fullest extent if it is ultimately ordered to rescind its approval of abortion pills.
Those in this camp are pointing to another court ruling Friday night out of Washington State ordering the FDA to maintain the status quo for abortion pills and forbidding the agency from rolling back access in the dozen blue states that brought the challenge. Those clashing decisions, they say, give the Biden administration cover to maintain access to the drugs in defiance of the Texas court if that ruling stands.
“These are not radical,” said David S. Cohen, a professor at the Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law. “These are real strategies within the law.”
Other Senate Democrats, anticipating this ruling, have called on the Biden administration to “use every legal and regulatory tool in its power” to keep abortion pills on the market. Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) recently petitioned the White House to use “any existing authorities, such as enforcement discretion, to allow mifepristone to remain available.
“FDA has previously used its authority to protect patients’ access to treatment and could do so again,” they wrote.
Timmaraju sees the mounting pressure from Democratic officials to ignore the court ruling as meaningful — even if they don’t ultimately goad the Biden administration into sweeping action.
“The senators are doing their jobs — it’s their job to push the White House and agencies like the FDA,” she said. “We need lawmakers from blue states getting out there and calling public attention to this case and raising awareness. For us, the biggest point people need to understand is that there is no state that is safe from these tactics.”
Adam Cancryn contributed reporting.
[ad_2]
#Ignore #courts #Democrats #Texas #abortion #pill #ruling #demands
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
“They will do much better if they will strategically fund operations in Texas that are overtly political and engaged in actually winning races,” said Matt Angle, who directs the Lone Star Project, a Texas committee devoted to defeating Republicans.
Florida Democrats echo that view. State Party Chair Nikki Fried said she’d welcome extra resources “to highlight the failures of Ron DeSantis,” but there are limits. She also said Newsom’s favorite California-versus-Florida framing, which resonates with some West Coast liberals, would backfire in DeSantis’ backyard.
“What would not be helpful is a comparison between the two states,” Fried said. “Florida is very different from California.”
Newsom has cast the effort as a moral imperative. In the launch video for the campaign, the governor — who is shown at one point marching across an iconic Sacramento bridge with hundreds of Democratic activists — decries the right’s policies on issues like abortion, guns and voting rights against a mashup of polarizing GOP figures.
In a Thursday email to supporters, he touted press coverage of the tour as evidence that “it’s working.”
It’s not an unexpected play from a governor who has long portrayed himself, and California, as a defender of democracy, enacting world-leading environmental policies and gun restrictions and expanding abortion access for people from out of state.
But this strategy bets that the message of a California governor — who made his fortune in fine wines and has deep ties to elite San Franciscans like Nancy Pelosi — can resonate elsewhere. While Newsom’s advisers comprise the dominant campaign team in California, they have little experience with the politics of conservative America.
Newsom and his people swear he’s not going to challenge President Joe Biden in 2024. But the PAC play reads like a classic bid to win friends and allies ahead of a future run.
“I think that he’s planning a campaign in the event that President Biden plans not to run for reelection,” Texas Democratic Party Chair Gilberto Hinojosa said in an interview, and “if he’s out there helping Democrats, he’s building a reserve of goodwill that would come in handy in 2028.”
Since defeating a recall effort in 2021, the governor has shifted his gaze away from California without suffering political consequences. He barely ran a reelection campaign last year and still won 60 percent of the vote.
Back home, Democrats are viewing this as a classic Newsom move. The governor is known to spend hours a day absorbing far-right media and often laments conservatives’ ability to dominate the narrative. “Somehow, Democrats are constantly on the defense,” he wrote in a recent campaign email. “… That has to end. We have to flip the ‘red state freedom’ narrative on its head.”
A cash infusion could certainly buoy Democrats fighting uphill battles in conservative states or competitive races in purple areas. Newsom kicked off the endeavor with his own leftover campaign cash and is soliciting donations, money that could go a long way for candidates in states and down-ballot races who have otherwise been starved of resources.
“Everyone needs to be doing this,” said David Pepper, a former chair of the Ohio Democratic Party. “We’ve seen the consequence when only one side is engaging in these states — it’s a disaster.”
Chris Jones, a Democrat who challenged Arkansas GOP Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders last year, is among the beneficiaries of Newsom’s checkbook and attention. The California governor donated $100,000 to Jones’ campaign last year and visited him this past week.
Jones said that as an Arkansas Democrat, he’s often felt overlooked by the party, but he sees Newsom’s visit as indicative of a wider trend. “We’re in a moment now where national Democrats are saying, ‘wait a minute, we have to look beyond the coasts and lean into the entire country,’” he said.
National Democrats are also backing the effort. Democratic National Committee Chair Jaime Harrison in a statement said that he’s “glad to see Governor Newsman making the case about what we’ve accomplished, what our values are, and the clear contrast with MAGA Republicans.”
Newsom has been known to use his donor list to boost Democrats and lambast his enemies, sending out fundraising emails with subject lines like “Indiana” or “DeSantis and Abbott,” referring to the Florida and Texas governors. The new campaign website promotes the importance of preserving democracy and American values, but under the “threats” section, Newsom lists DeSantis, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott.
Newsom’s brand of political prodding, though popular among his progressive devotees, may not be the messaging red-state Democrats are looking for. It’s a problem Angle, the Texas organizer, has seen before. Democrats there need to show the “the contrast between responsible mainstream Democrats and irresponsible, extreme Republicans,” he said — not “more ‘turn Texas blue’ pep rallies.”
“The resources are needed, and there is some smart money that gets spent in Texas from outside,” Angle said. “But Texans, even Democrats, resent people coming in and acting like they’re bringing fire to cavemen.”
One adviser granted anonymity to speak about the governor’s strategy said Newsom knows that his presence is not necessarily an asset for red-state Democrats who would prefer cash to appearing with a leading progressive.
“He’s self-aware enough to know where he’s helpful and not helpful,” the adviser said.
But Newsom’s penchant for seeking the spotlight, combined with the long odds of Democrats winning in the South, have seeded doubt about the plan.
“It just strikes me as a kind of a stunt,” said James Carville, a Democratic political operative with deep experience in the South. “We’re not going to carry Oklahoma anyway, or Kentucky for that matter.”
Nathan Click, who also worked on Newsom’s gubernatorial campaigns, said it was the governor’s idea to travel outside of California to go after the GOP, noting his sizable chunk of leftover contributions. “How do you use that money for good?” he said.
For months, Newsom has called for national Democrats to go on the offensive when it comes to lightning-rod issues like gun control, abortion and LGBTQ rights. His new effort is the most concrete step in that direction. The hybrid PAC can channel money toward independent expenditure advertising, campaigns and get-out-the-vote efforts in other states.
Aside from the cash, Newsom has something red-state Democrats don’t: political security. With a Democratic supermajority in the statehouse, Newsom hasn’t been hemmed in by a need to moderate his rhetoric — and can go after Republicans without much fear of retribution.
“Personally, I wouldn’t have said the things he has said and the way he has said it,” Jones, the Arkansas candidate, said, noting that Newsom’s solid electoral footing gives him the freedom to go on the attack in ways he could not.
Randy Kelley, chair of the Alabama Democratic Party, said he welcomes Newsom’s attention. State Republicans are “still fighting the Civil War,” he said, noting the ban on critical race theory and efforts by Gov. Kay Ivey to funnel education funds toward prison construction. Republicans have controlled both chambers of the state Legislature in Alabama since 2010, and only one of its seven congressional seats is held by a Democrat. As of January, gun owners can carry concealed weapons without a permit.
Democrats there don’t know much about Newsom, Kelley said, but that doesn’t matter as much as the assistance.
“Whatever message he has, it can’t hurt Alabama,” Kelley said. “It can only help.”
[ad_2]
#Gavin #Newsom #give #red #state #Democrats #blues
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
“We would never advocate for a false or politically determined limit on abortion,” said Pamela Merritt, the Missouri-based executive director of Medical Students for Choice. “Viability is an arbitrary line. It’s a legacy of Roe that we don’t need to resurrect. And we know the language of viability can be manipulated by state legislatures, just as they are already trying to redefine what a child is or what rape is.”
The rift among progressives threatens to fracture the abortion-rights movement as it readies for costly ballot initiative fights that are likely to play central roles in coming state and federal elections.
In Missouri, the local Planned Parenthood affiliate recently quit the ballot effort because most of the nearly dozen versions activists submitted to state officials propose only protecting abortion access before the fetus is viable or until 24 weeks of pregnancy, while other versions would impose other restrictions, such as parental consent requirements.
“We have long said that Roe was never enough, especially for marginalized communities shouldering the hardest impact of abortion bans,” said Vanessa Wellbery, the vice president of policy and advocacy for Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region and Southwest Missouri. “We are deeply committed to rebuilding a system that ensures all people can access abortion and all providers can provide it without political or legislative interference.”
The ballot measures in Ohio and Nevada also only protect abortion until viability, while South Dakota’s would legalize the procedure through the second trimester.
Groups defending the viability limit argue that it is widely supported by voters and has the best chance of passing in conservative and swing states.
“Yes, Roe was always the floor. But right now Missouri is in the basement,” said Mallory Schwarz, executive director of Pro-Choice Missouri. “It’s not the end game. It’s the first step in a long term effort and process.”
They also note that the more moderate language is similar to what voters approved in Michigan in November, and protects the right to an abortion even after the fetus is viable if the pregnancy endangers the pregnant person’s life or their physical or mental health.
“People have asked, does this allow abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy for any reason? That answer is, no. It doesn’t,” said Kellie Copeland, an executive committee member of Ohioans for Reproductive Freedom, the statewide coalition supporting the ballot measure. “But it does allow for people to be able to get the care that they need.”
These divisions within the abortion-rights movement mirror those on the anti-abortion side as heated battles erupt in several states argue over whether to allow exceptions to abortion bans or hold firm to the view that abortion should be illegal no matter the circumstances that led to the pregnancy. On both sides, those pushing a compromise point to polling showing that voters overwhelmingly oppose complete bans on the procedure but support some limits — especially in conservative-leaning states.
“You’ve got to meet voters where they’re at,” said Mini Timmaraju, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. “Look, we’re going to go for the most expansive, most broad access that we can get from these constitutional amendment efforts.”
‘A literal codification of Roe’
Interest in launching abortion-rights ballot initiatives exploded in the wake of the 2022 midterms, which saw progressives win each of the six state constitutional amendment fights related to abortion that went before voters that year — in California, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana and Vermont.
In Ohio and South Dakota, advocates are gathering signatures to restore Roe’s protections for abortion prior to viability. In Missouri, the secretary of state’s office is reviewing 11 versions of the proposed ballot measure and will release summaries of each before canvassing can begin. In Nevada, lawmakers just launched an effort to get the measure on the ballot in 2026; it must twice pass the biennial legislature before going to a popular vote.
Democratic officials in Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland and Washington state also proposed legislation this year to put abortion rights constitutional amendments before voters, but only Maryland’s legislature has approved the measure, teeing up a statewide popular vote in 2024.
Most involved in the efforts agree that eliminating all restrictions on abortion would be preferable, but cite in-state polling and research to argue that measures with the viability standard have the best chance of passing.
“We’re pushing a literal codification of Roe because that is what we think is palatable to the majority of citizens in South Dakota,” explained Adam Weiland, co-founder of Dakotans for Health, which is collecting signatures to make the procedure legal again. “Even if people in our state have more progressive views than expected when it comes to abortion, it’s still a conservative state and we need to be respectful of that. Most people are pretty comfortable with no government interference in the first trimester. But that support becomes more unstable the further along you get.”
A 2022 Pew Research poll of more than 10,000 people found that support for abortion waned as the pregnancy went along: Americans are twice as likely to support abortion than say it should be illegal at six weeks, roughly split on whether it should be legal at 14 weeks and about twice as likely to say it should be illegal than legal after 24 weeks.
Backers of the viability strategy also argue that a constitutional amendment with more specific language could make it harder for anti-abortion lawmakers to find a loophole in the future.
And because over 90 percent of U.S. abortions happen during the first trimester, they also argue that protecting abortions prior to viability — the standard held up for decades by Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey — would provide broad relief from the near-total bans in place now in South Dakota, Missouri and elsewhere.
“We don’t want medically unnecessary restrictions on abortion, and maybe it’s not surprising that medical groups have to draw a line there. But as advocates, as grassroots organizers, we feel an urgency,” Schwarz said.
‘We have momentum on our side’
Adopting a viability limit, however, would mean agreeing that abortion can’t always be a unfettered choice between a patient and physician, a concession that is too much for some local and national groups, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Ultraviolet and Medical Students for Choice. These groups warn the ballot measures as written will permanently lock in limitations they consider dangerous — and they’re threatening to withhold their support unless changes are made.
“It cannot be left to any politician to decide when an obstetrician-gynecologist must stop providing evidence-based care, to determine when a doctor can save the life of a patient, or which patient has a greater need for abortion than any other,” said Jennifer Villavicencio, an OB-GYN and leader of American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.
Other abortion-rights organizations dispute the premise that a measure that goes beyond Roe would not pass in a red or purple state — pointing to polling showing high support for abortion rights and opposition to restrictions.
“We need to start from the most expansive and expansionist place possible and not go in with preconceived notions about what people will or will not support,” said Sonja Spoo, the director of political affairs for the abortion rights group UltraViolet. “The people putting forward these restrictions, they’re not doing it because of mal-intent. It’s based on their feeling of what they think can come to fruition. But we see that we have momentum on our side and that this is an opportunity for education and a culture shift rather than codifying bans.”
Supporters of the ballot measures argue that the proposals’ fetal viability language is broad enough to allow abortions in a range of different circumstances later in pregnancy and leaves the decision up to doctors. Under the proposals, for example, providers would be responsible for deciding whether a fetus is viable based on the facts of the case and whether there is a “significant likelihood” of the survival of the fetus without extraordinary medical measures.
“It’s sticky to talk about, but it’s also something that we know gives voters assurance that what we’re talking about here is something they can understand and appreciate,” said Caroline Mello Roberson, southwest regional director for NARAL.
Yet some medical and abortion-rights advocacy groups argue the built-in flexibility is a mirage that would leave patients and providers vulnerable to prosecution.
“When you are practicing under an elected body that is so aggressive and the potential consequences for providers are a felony, time in jail, loss of license, etcetera, those ‘protections’ on paper don’t play out in reality,” said Colleen McNicholas, the head of ACOG’s Missouri chapter and the chief medical officer at Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region. “We already know that now. We have physicians right now who are afraid to provide completely legal care like miscarriage management or emergency contraction or ectopic care.”
[ad_2]
#Democrats #restore #Roe #Theyre #divided
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
But Biden officials and party leaders, however, see it far differently and are bristling at the attempts at a compromise, according to four lawmakers familiar with the discussions. Their party’s message to those plotting centrists: Your efforts are unlikely to succeed and risk hurting our goal of a clean debt ceiling increase.
The intraparty friction is growing as Washington’s debt crisis gets less theoretical and more urgent with each passing week. And the freelancing Democratic centrists may not have helped their cause by getting involved just as party leaders began seeing a political advantage in the fiscal fight — as long as they can keep the onus on Speaker Kevin McCarthy to unveil a plan that might pass the GOP-controlled House, with unpopular spending cuts likely to be attached.
“We’re gaining ground because of [House Republicans’] inability to put together a plan,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a brief interview. “I’m certainly willing to entertain a mix of things on the budget. Not on the debt ceiling.”
A White House official said the administration has “not spoken to the Problem Solvers about this.” Centrist Democrats, however, say they’ve been made well aware the effort isn’t likely to win any endorsements from party leaders — and have decided to forge ahead anyway as the debt impasse sparks high anxiety, with Congress gone until April 17.
Biden and McCarthy have had zero recent contact on the debt other than jabs exchanged through the press, despite the jittery U.S. banking sector further rattling the situation. Democratic leaders say they’ll accept only a clean debt limit bill, but emboldened House Republicans insist that would never pass their chamber.
Complicating it all: Republican leaders won’t yet describe precisely what they want in exchange for their votes to raise the nation’s borrowing ceiling. Schumer, in response, has taken up the chant “show us your plan” for more than two months and counting.
Enter that group of moderate Democrats, who have privately met with GOP centrists since February, in defiance of their leadership. Their talks remain in the early stages, and two lawmakers familiar with the discussions said they have not honed specific details yet.
One centrist Democrat, who along with others addressed the talks on condition of anonymity, observed that “you’ve got party leaders in both houses that don’t want us to talk to one another.”
They’re not listening to those nudges to stop talking: “None of us work for the White House. We work for our constituents. And they should start talking and negotiating,” said Rep. Jared Golden (D-Maine), who co-leads the centrist Blue Dog Coalition.
Centrist Republicans involved in the discussions call them a recognition of what Biden and most Hill Democrats have denied — McCarthy’s GOP simply won’t accept a clean debt hike. And as two months have passed since McCarthy’s last sitdown with Biden, moderate Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) said he’s one of those working within the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus because “we’ve got to have a plan B.”
With debt limit talks stuck in a mud puddle, House Republicans have seemingly abandoned plans to introduce a budget this spring, which could springboard the talks. That’s because GOP leaders are struggling to coalesce around a viable blueprint thanks to their members’ ever-expanding wish list and the realization that, for some hardline conservatives, there may be no level of austerity that would cut deep enough.
McCarthy and his team still want to draft their own package of deficit-reducing proposals, which his advisers say would mix ideas such as social program cuts with policies to increase U.S. energy production or tighten border security. Even so, the House GOP may not be able to unify behind such a plan.
“They don’t have a working majority,” Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said.
Those dynamics have convinced Schumer and Biden administration officials that they’re winning the public messaging battle over the debt ceiling. And so they’re increasingly content to hold the line on their demand for a clean increase to the borrowing limit.
The White House has jumped at opportunities to hammer Republicans over their proposed spending cuts, terming one set of demands from the House Freedom Caucus a “five-alarm fire.”
While most lawmakers expect the standoff will drag into the summer, Biden allies have circulated recent remarks from centrist members like Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) expressing concern over the prospect of a debt ceiling crisis — hopeful that more Republicans are deciding it’s not worth the fight.
“There’s starting to be more appreciation that the full faith and credit of the United States is not a source of leverage,” a White House official said.
But Senate Republicans across the Capitol aren’t fleeing McCarthy’s foxhole yet. The most active deal-cutting senators are either sitting out or in the dark.
“The only hints of an idea I hear is an effort among [House] Republicans to come up with something they can vote for and send it over here,” said Romney. “I don’t know of any bipartisan [effort] here. Not with me.”
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) also said she’d heard nothing of the Problem Solvers’ work.
“I don’t think you can expect a lot of movement on an issue like that until you start getting a little bit closer,” Senate Minority Whip John Thune (R-S.D.) said, adding that Democrats “want to run out the clock” but the strategy might not work: “I don’t think that they have that option.”
The Biden administration insists it won’t shift course. In a sign of the White House’s growing confidence, aides quickly brushed off McCarthy’s demand for a second meeting, arguing that there’s little point in the two men sitting down until Republicans decide among themselves what they want.
While Biden has not completely ruled out talking with McCarthy before Republicans publish their own budget, there’s little desire among aides to do anything that might help the speaker unite his fractious conference.
“How does he win here?” one economic adviser to the White House said of McCarthy. “They don’t really have a strategic plan.”
The White House has yet to weigh in formally on the ongoing centrist discussions about a backup approach. But there’s little doubt that it’s at odds with Biden’s preferred strategy. If anything, one adviser suggested, the likelihood that the moderates’ effort implodes or fails to win over either party’s leadership may only end up illustrating how far apart the two sides are.
Back in the Capitol, several Democrats said it’s worthwhile to discuss alternatives and broadly urged Biden to restart talks with the GOP.
Rep. Vicente Gonzalez (D-Texas), another member of the Problem Solvers, said it’s on both Biden and McCarthy to come up with a plan. ”Otherwise, it’s going to be a disaster. It already is, right?”
Jennifer Scholtes and Caitlin Emma contributed to this report.
[ad_2]
#Centrist #Democrats #hatch #secret #plan #debt #ceiling #calamity
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
According to two Appropriations Committee aides involved in the talks, $500 million in funding was included in the draft in hopes Democrats and Republicans could reach a deal to extend the TAA program, but they failed to do so. In the rush to pass the final bill, the appropriations provision was not altered, and aides felt it was not necessary to do so because the program was not authorized. The aides were granted anonymity to discuss confidential policy negotiations.
While stressing that the senator supports TAA in principle, Murray’s office believes the program remains expired and the money cannot be spent without authorizing language. After the bill was signed and Murray became chair of the Appropriations Committee, she called DOL to relay that information and request the agency not restart processing applications for TAA aid.
“The appropriations bill that passed at the end of the year said the program ended, that’s the way it was written,” Murray said in a brief Capitol Hill interview on Monday. She declined to comment on the language from her own committee allocating nearly $500 million to the program, reiterating that the bill “specifically said that the program was ended” and that “is all I’m going to say.”
Wyden, one of Murray’s senior Democratic colleagues whose committee oversees the TAA program, is challenging that interpretation.
Wyden and House Democrats tried for months to get an agreement with Republicans to authorize the program for another year. Republicans insisted throughout negotiations that the Biden administration would need to commit to new trade talks overseas to get the TAA payments restarted — a demand the White House dismissed. Though they never reached a deal on that language, Wyden says that having money appropriated for the program is enough for DOL to reopen TAA again.
“I believe the omnibus extended TAA for a year,” Wyden said in a Capitol Hill interview on Monday, adding he was not aware of Murray’s guidance to DOL. “The text of the law is clear,” he added later. “The Biden administration should use that authority to deliver workers the benefits they are owed.”
DOL declined to weigh in on the legal debate between the senators, but has so far complied with requests from Murray and her staff that the agency keep the program frozen. An agency spokesperson confirmed that the program “remains in termination status” and that DOL “may not conduct new investigations or issue certifications of eligibility for new groups of workers.” A separate fact sheet put out by the agency says more than 24,000 workers have pending applications that DOL cannot investigate.
If lawmakers and DOL do not attempt to use the $500 million, the TAA program will phase out after the remaining workers in the program — roughly 7,000, according to the DOL fact sheet — finish receiving their benefits. Congress could renew the program, potentially in the year-end spending bill, but Republicans have shown no desire to drop their demand for new free trade talks and Biden’s team hasn’t budged either.
The situation is angering labor unions, like the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, who wrote to DOL earlier this month, saying that “tens of thousands of workers are currently awaiting determinations of their petition for TAA support.” Other labor groups, including the United Steelworkers and AFL-CIO, also sent similar letters.
The issue, say congressional aides involved in the omnibus negotiations, goes back to the year-end crunch to finalize the spending package. As Wyden and trade lawmakers negotiated on TAA, appropriations lawmakers wrote in the $500 million in case lawmakers arrived at a deal to reauthorize it. That deal never materialized, but the $500 million provision was not altered in the rush to finish the package before the winter holidays. The mixup was an “artifact of the timing,” as one Appropriations Committee aide put it, stressing that it was Republican opposition — and not Murray — that ultimately killed the program.
Wyden’s office and the unions say that DOL should push forward regardless and spend the $500 million appropriated to the program, pointing out that executive agencies often spend appropriated funds on expired programs without explicit reauthorization. In particular, they point to a footnote in the Government Accountability Office’s guidance on appropriations law that says Congress “appropriates huge sums each year to fund programs with expired authorizations.”
But the Appropriations Committee staff says that argument doesn’t apply to TAA.
“There’s longstanding case law and precedent on this issue about when appropriation is sufficient to extend authorization of the program,” said one committee aide involved in the spending negotiations last year. “Everybody understood ahead of the omnibus that was not the case here.”
Additionally, the aide said the committee would not push DOL to reopen the program because it could poison upcoming spending negotiations with Republicans that need to be completed by the end of this year.
“While not our preferred policy outcome, we will stand by those negotiations,” the committee aide said, “because they are very delicate and we want to have a good process in [fiscal year 2024] as well.”
[ad_2]
#Congress #appropriated #500M #workers #Democrats #agree #spend
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
“My biggest fear was that the penalty would just be passed on to consumers,” Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi (D-Torrance) said during Monday’s Assembly floor debate. “That is a bipartisan concern. This measure, it doesn’t require penalties, it doesn’t require any maximum profit caps.”
Instead, he said, it adds transparency to the oil market and requires the Energy Commission to justify any penalty.
The bill, which cleared the Senate on Thursday, passed in the Assembly in a 58-19 vote — with opposition coming from the chamber’s 18 Republicans and from Assemblywoman Jasmeet Bain (D-Kern County).
“This is an industry that has been allowed to operate in the shadows,” Lauren Sanchez, Newsom’s senior climate advisor, told the Assembly Utilities and Energy Committee Monday morning. “It has lacked the accountability, the transparency and the oversight that we have long required of other critical sectors.”
The Assembly floor vote came after Newsom’s administration introduced amendments that appeased lawmakers who expressed concern over unintended consequences of tinkering with a complex market.
Republicans and oil industry representatives blasted the bill’s hasty passage, raised doubts that it would work as intended and expressed concerns for oil workers.
“The bill that you’re rushing through the process adds bodies, adds bureaucracy at the California Energy Commission, adds audits, adds penalties,” Eloy Garcia, a Western States Petroleum Association lobbyist, told the committee. “What it does not do is add supply. It does not expedite port or pipeline infrastructure.”
Assemblymember Jim Patterson (R-Fresno), noted the bill had not gone through the chamber’s Appropriations Committee despite an Energy Commission estimate that it would cost $9.4 million to hire 34 people for the new division.
Newsom first called for a windfall tax on oil companies last fall after average gas prices in California reached more than $6 per gallon. Oil companies reported record-high profits and their margins were higher in California than in the rest of the country.
He called a special session of the Legislature in December to address what he called the companies’ “price gouging.” At his request, Sen. Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) introduced a proposal that would have set a cents-per-gallon cap on oil companies’ profits and penalized profits above the margin.
Working with Newsom’s administration, Skinner introduced amendments to the proposal on March 20 to create the Petroleum Market Oversight Division at the Energy Commission. The legislation directs the division to collect data and analyze every link of the oil supply chain and then tailor solutions to their findings, including an optional penalty on profit margins.
“This does not guarantee a penalty,” Skinner said Monday. “It sets up a mechanism to do so if it is warranted. But, of course, if the oil companies’ practices are such that it is not warranted then the penalty would never be used.”
[ad_2]
#California #Democrats #pass #Newsoms #proposal #penalize #oil #company #profits
( With inputs from : www.politico.com )
