Kentucky Supreme Court Leaves Near-Total Abortion Ban in Place

The Kentucky Supreme Court ruled Thursday to keep a near-total ban on abortions in the state until a lower court can decide whether or not the law is constitutional.

Kentucky currently only allows abortions to save the life of the pregnant person, under a trigger law that kicked into effect when Roe v. Wade was overturned. A separate ban prohibits abortion after six weeks, before many people even know they are pregnant.

Judge Mitch Perry had halted both laws in July, arguing they violated the state constitution’s right to privacy and self-determination. Just weeks later, Appeals Court Judge Larry Thompson overturned the injunction. Lawyers for Planned Parenthood and EMW Women’s Surgical Center, Kentucky’s two abortion providers, filed a lawsuit asking the state Supreme Court to reinstate Perry’s injunction.

The high court heard arguments for the case a week after the midterm elections, when Kentucky residents voted against amending the constitution to explicitly say that it does not protect the right to abortion.

Justice Debra Hembree Lambert wrote in Thursday’s majority opinion that Perry’s court had “abused its discretion by granting the abortion providers’ motion for a temporary injunction.”

The ruling comes the day after a Republican lawmaker introduced a bill that would let the state prosecute a person who gets an illegal abortion for criminal homicide. The proposed legislation was so controversial that it even drew pushback from Kentucky’s anti-abortion Attorney General Daniel Cameron, who said it “strikes the wrong balance” and called on the state legislature to reject it.

Cameron, a Republican who is running for governor, warned the bill would wrongly target women who terminate pregnancies. However, he also defended the other two abortion bans at question in the case before the Supreme Court.

An experimental male birth control was found to be 100 percent effective in a study on mice, paving the way for more equitable contraceptive options.

The pill works by preventing sperm from swimming long enough to reach the egg. The study, published Tuesday, found the medication is 100 percent effective for up to an hour after being taken. The pill’s effectiveness dips slightly to 91 percent after three hours, and falls to 78 percent after eight hours.

Nearly all the sperm were able to move normally again after 24 hours. The pill is non-hormonal, meaning it will not affect testosterone levels, which could in turn lower sex drive or cause erectile dysfunction. It also won’t cause side effects such as mood swings, nausea, or headaches.

New drugs can take five to 10 years to hit the markets, depending on whether studies get approved and how much funding they receive. The researchers for this new male contraceptive hope to conduct more animal trials before moving on to humans.

If they are able to start selling their pill, it would be more effective than using either condoms, which are 98 percent effective for humans, or female hormonal contraceptives, which are up to 99 percent effective. The pill is also faster-acting than current female birth control pills, which must be taken for a few weeks before they start working.

The report’s co-author Melanie Balbach, a postdoctoral associate at the Weill Cornell Medical College, said that if the pill works in humans, men could take it as needed and make day-to-day decisions about fertility and family planning.

Frankly, it’s about time.

The report’s authors note that “existing family planning options are inadequate.” The burden of contraception falls disproportionately on women. So much time, energy, and stress goes into preventing pregnancy, not to mention discomfort. Hormonal birth control can cause nasty side effects both in the moment and long-term, ranging from nausea and migraines to increased risk of blood clots and cancer.

Another common option, IUDs, are incredibly painful to get inserted. Even the current abortion laws primarily target cisgender women, despite the fact that they don’t accidentally get pregnant by themselves.

The main reason, it would seem, is that many men simply don’t want to be inconvenienced. Previous experimental forms of male birth control included injections, which many men laughed off on social media.

Another trial is for a contraceptive body gel. Richard Anderson, a professor of Clinical Reproductive Science at the University of Edinburgh, is leading the trial and told the BBC in 2019 that the pharmaceutical industry has dragged its feet on male contraceptives, despite evidence that both men and their female partners wanted the option.

“I think that [the] industry has not been convinced about the potential market,” he said.

Allan Pacey, a professor of andrology at the University of Sheffield, said: “Unfortunately, so far, there has been very little pharmaceutical company interest in bringing a male contraceptive pill to the market, for reasons that I don’t fully understand but I suspect are more down to business than science.”

In short:

Former Vice President Mike Pence said Wednesday that he plans to resist the subpoena issued to him by the special counsel investigating Donald Trump’s role in January 6.

It was no surprise that Jack Smith issued the subpoena last week: He has been slowly closing in on Trump and the former president’s inner circle, and Pence is a key witness to both the events of January 6, 2021, and Trump’s state leading up to them.

But Pence is refusing to play ball. “I’m going to fight the Biden DOJ’s subpoena … because it’s unconstitutional and because it’s unprecedented, and the DOJ knows that,” Pence told reporters after an event in Minnesota. “The Constitution of the United States provides the executive branch cannot summon officials in the legislative branch into a court.”

Pence is arguing that he is protected by legislative privilege under his former role as president of the Senate. He believes that position shields him from Justice Department investigations under the Constitution’s “speech or debate” clause.

That clause’s purpose is to protect members of Congress from having things they say during legislative activities be used against them in lawsuits.

“For me, this is about the Constitution. If we lose the Constitution, we won’t just be losing elections. We’re going to lose our country,” Pence said.

He likened his current stance to when he refused to overturn the results of the 2020 election despite intense pressure from Trump.

Pence’s refusal to cooperate is infuriating but unsurprising. Despite the fact that the rioters wanted to hang him—which White House aides have said Trump felt was deserved—the former vice president has repeatedly refused to testify in January 6 investigations.

The reason is simple: Pence is reportedly considering running for president in 2024. If he does, he will need all the support he can get, including from Trump’s base. If Pence testifies, he’ll have to denounce Trump, alienating his former boss’s supporters in the process.

But his argument against testifying doesn’t hold that much water. As part of an effort to remain in the public consciousness, he has released a book about his time at the White House. The memoir includes many details he would be asked to testify on.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul has made history, after her nominee for the state’s highest court was rejected by the entire state legislature.

Last month, Hochul’s controversial nominee, Judge Hector LaSalle, was rejected by the Senate Judiciary Committee. And on Wednesday, the Senate held a full floor vote and again rejected LaSalle, this time by a vote of 39–20.

Hochul released a statement Wednesday afternoon finally relenting, though perhaps not fully. “This vote is an important victory for the Constitution,” she said. “But it was not a vote on the merits of Justice LaSalle.” Hochul said she will now proceed to make a new nomination.

New York Senate Democrats initially voted against LaSalle due to concerns from the entire Democratic constituency over his judicial record on labor, abortion, and criminal justice. Rather than heeding their earlier warnings, Hochul instead promised to do “everything” in her power to push her nominee onto the state’s Court of Appeals.

The drama began in December, when, just weeks after beating a Republican during a midterm election in New York by only five points, Hochul chose to nominate LaSalle, whose record was criticized by liberals, progressives, workers, and abortion voters as being antagonistic to supposed Democratic values. These various constituent groups maintained pressure on legislators, and by Wednesday’s vote, at least 25 of the 63 state senators had publicly expressed opposition to LaSalle’s nomination.

Instead of responding to the criticism and nominating someone else from her list of seven potential picks, Hochul spent much of her political capital, and then some, to impose her will and force through LaSalle’s nomination anyway.

In early January, Hochul allegedly revoked Ironworkers Vice President James Mahoney’s invitation to the State of the State address, after the prominent labor representative criticized Hochul’s pick. It felt like being put “on the menu,” Mahoney said, particularly after he and other labor organizers worked so hard to elect Hochul in the first place.

Days later, newly anointed House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries went out of his way to appear alongside Hochul at a Bronx rally to enthusiastically endorse LaSalle. This was particularly striking given that Jeffries is House minority leader, and not House speaker, in no small part thanks to the Cuomo-crafted conservative majority on the state’s top court, which drew unfavorable district maps.

Her audacity never to be discounted, Hochul then appeared at two New York City churches on Martin Luther King Jr. Day to rally support for her nomination. “My household knew the story of Dr. King,” Hochul preached to the unsuspecting audience. “When he was gunned down, assassinated, my family sat there and held hands and wept. How could this be? How could this man of God who taught us about nonviolence and social justice and change, and not judging people by the color of their skin, or one or two cases out of 5,000 cases decided,” she concluded, tying the assassination of one of America’s most historic civil rights leaders to her unpopular court nominee.

Nevertheless, in mid-January, the state’s Senate Judiciary Committee voted to prevent Judge Hector LaSalle from advancing to a Senate-wide vote. Buttressed by Democratic voters across the ideological spectrum, 10 of the committee’s 19 Democrats voted against LaSalle, sinking his nomination with a final vote count of 2–10–7. (Two members voted unequivocally for him; seven voted to advance him without recommendation.)

Even then, Hochul wasn’t satisfied. She volleyed threats to take legal action against the Committee for tanking the nomination, on the grounds of the rejection being unconstitutional. She argued that such a nomination necessitated a Senate-wide vote; but New York’s Constitution only dictates that a governor must make judicial appointments with the “advice and consent of the Senate.”

Last week, Republican State Senator Anthony Palumbo filed a lawsuit against the Senate, Democratic Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins, and the Democrats in the judiciary committee who voted against LaSalle. The lawsuit was based on Hochul’s own arguments about constitutionality, but its legal case appears flimsy, homing in on some language while ignoring others. For instance, the lawsuit’s proponents seemed less interested in the part of the state constitution that reads, “Each house shall determine the rules of its own proceedings.”

But Wednesday’s result likely upends whatever ruling was to come from the case. By Hochul’s own wishes, Democrats gave her her statewide vote. And today, by Hochul’s own actions, she was embarrassingly rebuked once again.

This post has been updated.

Virginia’s Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin poured cold water on a bill that would have prevented law enforcement from accessing data stored on period-tracking apps.

The bill, which comes amid increasing attacks on abortion nationwide, had already passed the state Senate with broad bipartisan support. Only nine of the chamber’s 18 Republicans voted against it, while the other half sided with the Democratic majority. But it failed in the House of Delegates Monday after Youngkin’s administration expressed opposition to it.

“Currently, any health information or app information is available via search warrant,” said Virginia’s Deputy Secretary of Public Safety and Homeland Security Maggie Cleary, speaking on Youngkin’s behalf. “We believe that should continue to be the case.”

She warned legislators the bill would be the very first to limit what state courts can deem relevant enough to criminal cases that it merits a search warrant.

The bill’s sponsor, Democratic Senator Barbara Favola, argued that period data should be considered a unique case because “there’s very little information that is as personal and private as your menstrual data.” But the bill still failed 5–3 along party lines.

“It is exceptionally disquieting to see Governor Youngkin oppose a bill that would protect women from having their private health data weaponized against them in a court of law,” Democratic Party of Virginia press secretary Liam Watson said in a statement.

Tarina D. Keene, the executive director of the abortion rights group, REPRO Rising Virginia, told The Washington Post that Youngkin’s “opposition to this commonsense privacy protection measure shows his real intentions—to ban abortion and criminalize patients and medical providers.”

Since the fall of Roe v. Wade, many people have worried that data collected from hugely popular period-tracking apps could be weaponized as a means to find and prosecute those who get abortions.

Millions of people use such apps, which are not bound by HIPAA, the federal health privacy law. This means that the app companies are required to hand over information to law enforcement if asked. Abortion rights groups have warned the information could be used against both people who seek abortions and the medical workers who carry out the procedure.

Abortion in Virginia is currently legal up to 26 weeks of pregnancy. State law allows prosecutors to charge doctors who violate the restrictions, but not the patients. Youngkin’s office has said he will not sign legislation that “imprisons women” for getting the procedure, but he has also pledged to sign any abortion bans that reach his desk.

He backed a 15-week abortion ban after Roe was overturned, and in his proposed budget unveiled in December, he proposed setting aside $50,000 to establish that limit. The ban failed in the Senate in late January.

Youngkin’s opposition to privacy for menstrual history comes just days after the Florida High School Athletics Association decided not to require student athletes to provide their schools with detailed information about their periods.

A board panel had recommended the requirement in January, which caused such a massive outcry over privacy violations that the board called an emergency meeting over the rule. On the national level, a group of Democratic representatives also introduced a bill that would block schools that receive federal funding from requiring students to provide their menstrual data. The bill is unlikely to pass the House, which is controlled by Republicans, who have made it clear they are cracking down on all abortion-related rights.

A Kentucky Republican lawmaker has introduced legislation that would let the state prosecute a person who gets an illegal abortion for criminal homicide, making it the latest state to try and clamp down on reproductive access in direct opposition to the will of the people.

Since the fall of Roe v. Wade, abortion is banned in Kentucky except to save the life of the pregnant person, meaning any abortion due to rape, incest, or just personal choice is illegal. The current law, though, does state that someone who receives an illegal abortion cannot be subjected to “any criminal conviction and penalty.”

The new bill, introduced Tuesday by Republican State Representative Emily Callaway, strips away that protection. The legislation would amend the current law to establish that life begins at fertilization, therefore all fetuses are owed the same protections as a living human.

“Unless specifically provided otherwise, in prosecution under this chapter where the victim is an unborn child, enforcement shall be subject to the same legal principles as would apply to the homicide of a person who had been born alive,” the text says.

The bill does make exceptions for “lawful” medical procedures carried out to save the pregnant person’s life. It also protects against prosecution for a medical procedure that results in a “natural or accidental” miscarriage.

The bill comes just a few months after Kentucky residents voted in the midterms against an amendment that would have said abortion is not a protected right in the state.

Heather Gatnarek, the ACLU of Kentucky’s senior staff attorney, slammed the new legislation as “absurd and offensive and dangerous.”

“It’s just so far afield from what we know Kentuckians want and what they need,” she told The Courier Journal. “We know people still need access to abortions.”

Kentucky is now the latest state to try to overturn the will of the people. The most notable one is Kansas, where lawmakers are trying to let cities and counties ban abortion after residents overwhelmingly voted to keep abortion protections in the state constitution.

Republicans have made clear they are going full-speed ahead with attacks on abortion rights, both at the state and federal level. Democrats are trying to combat their attempts, but it is an uphill battle. President Joe Biden has promised repeatedly to veto any federal abortion ban bills, but any legislation actually enshrining the right to the procedure is unlikely to pass the Republican-controlled House of Representatives or even the Senate, which Democrats hold by a thin majority.

As thousands of residents of East Palestine, Ohio, struggle to find safe accommodation and tend to their alarming symptoms in the aftermath of a disastrous train derailment, Republican Governor Mike DeWine assured the public on Tuesday that he is “not seeing” any problems.

DeWine said this in response to a question on whether he was satisfied with the Biden administration’s response. DeWine contrasted himself from do-nothing Senator J.D. Vance, who complained (rightly) about the lack of a federal response; the Ohio governor said while he has spoken with President Biden, who offered assistance, he felt that no further assistance was needed.

While Vance and other Republicans might rightfully question the government’s inaction, they too have seldom done anything worth calling home about. Vance complained about the country being ruled by “unserious people who are worried about fake problems instead of the real fact that our country is falling apart.” Just hours before the train derailed, Vance posted a photo on Twitter of him aiming a gun at the sky, in reference to shooting down the Chinese spy balloon floating above the United States last week.

All this to say, most of Congress and the entire Biden administration is at fault here. Only a select, largely progressive group of lawmakers stuck by rail workers last year as they vied for reasonable work conditions and warned of disasters like this one occurring; the rest of Congress, including the president, imposed an inadequate contract on rail workers nationwide.

Meanwhile, rail companies have enjoyed continuing to chase profit with no abandon. They’ve been free to practice precision scheduled railroading, or PSR, which has led to smaller crews and bigger trains, and therefore greater strain on workers and greater risk for disaster. The Trump administration overturned an Obama-era rule that would’ve brought industry-wide improvement to the braking system—something that failed in East Palestine’s derailment. The Biden administration and Pete Buttigieg’s Department of Transportation have failed to revive it.

Though DeWine may just be contrasting himself from hacks like Vance, he must understand that there are, indeed, problems. Thousands of people are paranoid and scared, as they’ve been left to guide each other through confusing and inconsistent compensatory processes led by Norfolk Southern, the same company that brought them to such calamity. People are sick, their animals are dying, and misinformation about the incident is running rampant. DeWine and other officials should embrace what we’ve come to see yet again is true: The government must do much more to protect the dignity and welfare of its people.

Dianne Feinstein, California’s longest-serving senator, is retiring. The 89-year-old congressional veteran will serve the remainder of her term.

“I am announcing today I will not run for reelection in 2024 but intend to accomplish as much for California as I can through the end of next year when my term ends,” Feinstein said in a statement on Tuesday.

Curiously, it’s not actually clear whether Feinstein was aware the statement was released, or she just forgot it was happening. Reporter Matt Laslo asked Feinstein about the retirement, and she seemed to have forgotten, or, in a generous interpretation, misspoke:

Having served in the Senate for 30 years, Feinstein was the first female Jewish senator elected to Congress and then joined Barbara Boxer, also Jewish, in being the first female senatorial duo to represent a state at the same time.

At her best, Feinstein authored the 1994 federal assault weapons ban and chaired the Senate committee tasked with investigating and releasing a report on the CIA’s tortuous interrogation practices. At her worst, she could be seen chiding young children advocating for the Green New Deal, condescendingly complaining about them asking her to deliver a livable future. “You didn’t vote for me,” she said.

While Feinstein had filed early Federal Election Commission paperwork indicating she would indeed seek reelection in 2024, any momentum seemed to stall. In the past year, lawmakers and staffers alike have expressed concerns about the oldest sitting U.S. senator’s mental capacities and whether she could continue serving.

Amid the speculation surrounding the California senator’s future plans, other younger and well-known Democrats were raring to show their eagerness to vie for Feinstein’s seat. Representatives Adam Schiff and Katie Porter have already announced their candidacies; Representative Barbara Lee has said she will be running for Senate as well. Representative Ro Khanna has also indicated an interest in the seat, though he has said he would take Lee’s intentions into account.

This post has been updated.

As students sheltered in place during the shooting at Michigan State University Monday night, the experience was doubly traumatizing for many, as they had lived through such a nightmare before.

The tragedy at MSU, which left three dead and five wounded in critical condition, is the sixty-seventh mass shooting this year. There have been more mass shootings than there have been days in 2023.

Horrifically, school shootings seem to have become the norm in the United States. The MSU attack was Michigan’s second school shooting in about a year, coming 14 months after a student opened fire at Oxford High School in Michigan (four dead, seven wounded). It came on the fifth anniversary of the Parkland school shooting in Florida (17 dead, 17 wounded) and a little more than 10 years after the Sandy Hook massacre in Connecticut (26 dead, two wounded). Graduates of all three schools now attend MSU.

In a video that quickly went viral, one Sandy Hook survivor slammed the MSU shooting.

“The fact that this is the second mass shooting that I have now lived through is incomprehensible,” the 21-year-old, who uses the handle Jmattttt, said in the TikTok. “We can no longer just provide love and prayers. It needs to be legislation, it needs to be action. It’s not OK.”

One Oxford alum was across the street from where the shooting began and immediately called her mother. “She said that she had PTSD. She said she can’t believe this is happening again,” her mom told the Detroit Free Press, who asked that the student’s name not be used.

“She said, ‘Mom I just want to come home, I want to hold you.’”

The mother of another Oxford graduate, whose name was also withheld, told the Local 4 station that it was “like reliving Oxford all over again.”

The woman said that instinct kicked in for her daughter and for herself. “It’s really, really surreal to have to worry about this, and to know exactly what to do,” she said.

Three MSU freshmen had lived in Rochester, Michigan, a few towns over from Oxford, and vividly remembered the shooting there.

“I don’t feel safe anymore at MSU … and now we have to spend the next three years here,” one told local reporter Rachel Louise Just.

The Michigan state government has repeatedly called for gun control, and House Majority Whip Ranjeev Puri was livid Tuesday as he highlighted the fact that such mass shootings only happen in the U.S.

“Fuck your thoughts and prayers,” he said in a statement. “We do not need to live like this.”

Nikki Haley is running for president.

After much speculation of will-she-won’t-she spanning as far back as when she was floated as a potential vice presidential pick in 2012, the former South Carolina governor now joins the field against the same man who appointed her as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

Haley, like many Republicans, has carefully trodden the line between maintaining warm relations with former President Donald Trump while also trying to distance herself from the twice-impeached leader whenever she felt compelled to. But in her video announcement on Tuesday, Haley called for “a new generation of leadership,” seemingly a slight dig at Trump.

Haley also pointed out in her ad that “Republicans have lost the popular vote in seven out of the last eight presidential elections,” saying that has to change (perhaps an admission that it’s bad, and maybe invalidating, for a party to lose the popular vote).

Haley’s balancing act thus far has been pretty pathetic to watch, as has her journey to choosing to run in 2024.

After resigning as Trump’s U.N. ambassador in 2018, she moved back to South Carolina and published a memoir the following year, slowly building up funds through speaking engagements. In 2021, Haley had said she wouldn’t challenge Trump if he ran.

“I would not run if President Trump ran, and I would talk to him about it,” Haley told the Associated Press. “That’s something that we’ll have a conversation about at some point, if that decision is something that has to be made.”

And a conversation they did indeed seemingly have. Trump apparently blessed Haley’s candidacy. He recently told reporters that Haley called him in January to tell him she was considering jumping in and that he told her she “should do it.”

Though she seemingly calls for change in her announcement ad, Haley has long had the impulse to pacify Trump and has refrained from directly criticizing him the last few years. This, even while she’s running against him, says all you need to know about most of the people who have expressed interest in running against Trump: They simply don’t have the juice. Tim Scott, another South Carolina Republican rumored to be toying with a run supported by numerous members of Congress, has previously said he would support Trump in a 2024 bid (he said this after January 6, 2021), and then a year later implied he’d be happy to be Trump’s running mate.

And if Haley, or Republicans generally, plan to recoup the popular vote, they have a tall task ahead of them. Trump lost to Biden by over seven million votes in 2020. And Republicans’ unpopular agenda that focuses more on whipping up imagined culture wars and taking away the right to abortion has not paid off since, given the party’s relatively poor performance in 2022.

Haley and any other Republican of color who chooses to run will also deal not only with the Trump-elephant in the room but also navigating how they manage their own identity. In her ad, Haley described herself as “the proud daughter of Indian immigrants.” But she registered herself as “white” on her 2001 voter registration card. She has also previously invoked her Indian roots as she backed Trump’s 2020 bid, claiming “America is not a racist country,” in the same breath that she recounted discrimination her family faced upon immigrating to America.

Some of this racial navigation has also come in the form of Haley saying U.S. citizen Senator Raphael Warnock should be deported.

Haley will of course also face a challenge of being a woman of color candidate in general. One 2022 poll showed that, unfortunately, voters of all stripes see the “ideal” president as a man. But among Republicans in particular, 50 percent said the ideal president would be male while just 2 percent said she would be female.

While Haley navigates not trying to step on Trump’s toes and trying to appease the racist factions in her party, she assured in her ad that, in this ring, she has her gloves on. “You should know this about me: I don’t put up with bullies,” she said. “And when you kick back, it hurts them more if you’re wearing heels.”