Archive by Author

Rep. Judy Chu among those arrested at pro-abortion rights protest on Capitol grounds

Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.) was arrested on Thursday at a pro-abortion rights rally on Capitol grounds.

The rally, which was organized by Planned Parenthood, came less than a week after the Supreme Court issued a ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark case that made access to abortion a constitutional right.

Chu said the decision to join the peaceful demonstration on Thursday was “easy,” after considering the individuals who would be affected by the reversal of Roe.

“When I first heard Roe was overturned, I immediately thought of who would be most harmed by this decision: a young girl who is a survivor of rape, a woman who cannot afford to travel to another state to access critical care, an expecting mother with an ectopic pregnancy whose life is in danger because she cannot have an abortion,” she said in a statement.

“So, when I think of all these women — and more — the decision to join in a peaceful demonstration to make clear we will not allow the clock to be rolled back on abortion rights was easy,” she added.

Chu is a leading sponsor of the Women’s Health Protection Act, a bill that seeks to codify Roe v. Wade.

The legislation cleared the House in a mainly party-line vote in September, but was later blocked in the Senate by Republicans and Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin (W.Va.).

A number of Democrats, including President Biden on Thursday, have called on the Senate to abolish the filibuster to pass abortion legislation, but the caucus does not appear to have the votes to do so — Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Simena (D-Ariz.) have been opposed to changing the 60–vote threshold.

Chu called for the filibuster to be abolished after her arrest on Thursday.

“We are in this together and we will not back down or be silenced. I am ramping up my calls to abolish the Senate filibuster — and actively exploring every option to ensure we pass my bill, the Women’s Health Protection Act, which establishes a federal right to abortion care, and have it signed into law,” she said in her statement.

“Lives are at stake and this fight is far from over,” she added.

The U.S. Capitol Police said it arrested 181 individuals outside the Capitol on Thursday for crowding, obstructing, incommoding or blocking a main intersection.

Source: TEST FEED1

State abortion bans create new governmental obligations for children

Now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade, “trigger laws” and formerly stale abortion restrictions in numerous states are going into effect. This raises a new question: Do governments take on any legal obligations when, in the words of former Justice Blackmun in the 1992 Casey case, they “conscript[] women’s bodies” to act as surrogates for the state? In limited circumstances, the answer is clearly, yes.

Because Roe v. Wade protected a formal right to an abortion, for decades the issue of society’s affirmative responsibility for families has been overshadowed by the fiction that pregnancy and successful childrearing are exclusively the personal responsibility of individual women. This is despite the fact that socioeconomic conditions are the primary predictor of unwanted pregnancy, the majority of women obtaining abortions used contraception, while neonatal and early childhood conditions play a critical role as a “foundation for future learning, health and life success.”

Unfortunately, the same states that are most aggressively “pro-life” also perversely exacerbate demand for abortions by rejecting federal funding for family planning and forbidding sensible sex education. They then place resulting, unintended children in danger by denying them the resources necessary to thrive. Pointing out this hypocrisy, former longtime lawmaker Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) declared decades ago that for “legislators who oppose abortion but also oppose child nutrition and day care[,] … life begins at conception and ends at birth.” 

In extreme cases, however, the government can be held constitutionally liable when its neglect harms children. With new abortion bans in place, sadly these cases will become more common. The Supreme Court just further limited the ability of the federal government to mitigate the unfolding climate crisis, which is already causing deadly heat waves that disproportionately impact Black mothers and the most vulnerable. Given this reality, the costs we owe future generations — to simply assure them the fair start in life that is the genesis of equal opportunity and democracy — are mounting. We pay those costs upfront, or we will suffer them in a democracy that continues to degrade around us. 

Under principles laid down in the 1989 Supreme Court case Deshaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, states have a specific duty to protect its own wards from unreasonable risk of danger. For example, in 2015, a federal judge ruled that the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) violated the constitutional Due Process life and liberty rights of present and future children by holding them in unreasonably dangerous institutional settings that are overburdened, understaffed and mismanaged. Children in DFPS care have been exposed to horrifying levels of severe abuse and neglect with hundreds allegations in recent years, including court monitors revealing in March 2022 that staff at a DFPS facility were dealing Ecstasy and Xanax to kids in exchange for nude photos of the children that they then tried to sell online. Many other states face similar problems.

Given that Texas’ Senate Bill 8 banned most abortions in 2021, the approximately 30,000 of the abortions performed in Texas in 2018 would be illegal today. The number of abortions in recent years has been increasing in every region of the country. Many women who would have lawfully terminated a pregnancy will now give birth. Because of the rampant anti-Black and anti-male bias in adoption matching, and some states, such as Texas, granting the biological father a veto over adoption regardless of marital or cohabitation status, a significant proportion of women who are unable to or decline to raise an unplanned child will not find an appropriate adoptive family.

An unknown, but presumably considerable, number of these children will end up in state care. But, according to a January 2022 court report, in late-2021, each month Texas DFPS was accepting 312 children into its custody for which it lacked placement. How will states adequately care for the thousands of children that will be added these broken systems?

In a dramatic contrast, courts in a plurality of states ban recidivist, neglectful parents from further procreation until they are capable of caring for their existing children. Courts even issue preemptive no-custody orders, declaring parents unfit to have custody over future children for a given period of time. Yet, deadbeat, “pro-life” states are imprudently, forcibly creating children without assessing their institutional capacity to care for present or future charges. They are not preparing for an influx into foster care or funding childcare, prenatal health, early education or any of the numerous other programs that will be necessary to offer these most vulnerable members of society a fair start in life.

Even worse, they are not following the good example of Colorado, which makes long-acting contraceptives readily available, dramatically reducing unintended pregnancies in the first place.

Letting “pro-life” scofflaws off scot-free is inconsistent with responsibilities imposed on individuals in equivalent circumstances. Courts, including in Texas, have not had any difficulty recognizing that when a doctor’s misdiagnosis prevents a woman from learning of her fetus’ congenital defect, that doctor is the legal cause of the birth and financially liable for the resulting disabled child’s medical expenses. (Campbell v. United States in 1992 and Pressil v. Gibson in 2015). However, if a state imposes an abortion ban that outright forces a woman to give birth to a severely disabled child, as it stands she will not receive any compensation. Rather, in Texas, as in other states, if she surrenders the child to the state that forced her to birth it, she will be charged for the government’s cost for housing the child.

Some abortion opponents, such as the “whole life movement,” seek to care for fetal life by advocating for improved access to health care and other social support policies. But this is not the approach taken in Republican-controlled legislatures across the country. These states now risk creating a massive, permanent underclass. The addition of an unplanned child places enormous strain on a family and, without proper interventions, also on the wider community.

For instance, in California, 28 percent of all prison inmates had a history of an open child welfare case or foster care. According to the National Foster Youth Institute, “nationwide, 50 [percent] of the homeless population spent time in foster care.” When Roe v. Wade was the law of the land, enacting unenforceable abortion bans could score cheap political points. They now come with a steep cost for all of us.

The Supreme Court’s conclusion that “abortion is not a fundamental constitutional right” does not mean that actual abortion restrictions — as applied — are constitutional or that they satisfy the state’s moral and legal duties to families and future children. 

Unless states with abortion limitations invest in family planning, childcare, healthcare, education and systems capable of properly caring for unwanted children, abortion bans will result in states violating their “duty to protect.”

Regardless of whether abortion is legal or not, when a state usurps control of reproduction from women but neglects to adequately care for the resulting offspring, it acts illegitimately.

Carter Dillard is the author of “Justice as a Fair Start in Life” and chairman of the board of directors of Fair Start Movement, which seeks to ensure every child a “fair start” by incentivizing better family planning and smaller, more equitable families for all, thereby creating a more just and sustainable society.

Source: TEST FEED1

Stocks close out brutal June with losses as S&P suffers worst first half since 1970

The stock market closed out the final day of June with losses, capping off a tumultuous month for investors and the S&P 500 index’s worst first half since 1970.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed with a loss of 0.8 percent Thursday after falling 254 points. The Dow ended June down 7.2 percent on the month and 15.3 percent since the start of 2022.

The Nasdaq closed with a loss of 1.3 percent Thursday, bringing its total monthly decline to 7.7 percent and its plunge since the start of the year to 29.5 percent.

The S&P ended June with a loss of 0.9 percent, falling 8.9 percent on the month and 21 percent from an all-time record reached on Jan. 2. The S&P fell more over the past six months than any first half of a year since 1970, but did not begin that decline from an all-time high as it did this year.

Stocks had fallen steadily since the start of 2022 after almost 18 consecutive months of rapid gains. Stock values exploded shortly after the market crashed amid the outbreak of the pandemic, as the federal government pumped trillions of dollars in fiscal and monetary stimulus through the economy. 

A decline in spending on in-person services during the pandemic also fueled new retail interest in stock trading and cryptocurrencies, which led to another massive rally last year as COVID-19 vaccines unlocked a rapid economic rebound.

While stocks were expected to come back to earth in 2022, Wall Street has taken relentless and escalating losses as high inflation, the war in Ukraine and the Federal Reserve’s efforts to mitigate both boost concerns about a recession.

The Fed aims to ramp up rates gradually and give the economy enough time to adjust to higher borrowing costs. Higher interest rates from the Fed are meant to slow the economy enough to reduce inflation without halting growth or forcing layoffs. Higher interest rates also make investments in riskier assets and startups less attractive, which brings down the value of stock prices.  

Source: TEST FEED1

Justice Department to investigate NYPD's sex crimes unit

The Department of Justice (DOJ) opened an investigation into the New York Police Department’s (NYPD) sex crimes division on Thursday following complaints that it allegedly shamed and abused survivors and deprived them of thorough investigations.

The DOJ said in a release that the department had received information about “deficiencies” within the NYPD’s Special Victims Division stretching back more than a decade, including allegations that the division failed to conduct “basic investigative steps” and instead re-traumatized victims during investigations.

“Survivors of sexual assault should expect effective, trauma-informed and victim-centered investigations by police departments,” said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke. “Based on information provided to the Justice Department, we find significant justification to investigate whether the NYPD’s Special Victims Division engages in a pattern or practice of gender-biased policing.”

The investigation will include a comprehensive review of the NYPD’s policies, procedures and training for sexual assault investigations and will include outreach to community groups and the public.

Federal law allows the DOJ’s division to pursue civil litigation against state and local police departments that engage in practices that deprive individuals of their constitutional or federal rights. The DOJ said the investigation would assess potential violations of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Safe Streets Act.

The NYPD said in a statement that it welcomed the DOJ’s review, also pointing to the results of an independent review of its sex crimes division by outside experts published in May.

The review observed multiple strengths in the NYPD’s sex crimes response but also noted that 6 percent of 150 randomly selected sexual assault cases handled by the division resulted in arrests.

NYPD Commissioner Keechant Sewell said she was working to implement the group’s recommendations.

“We continue the NYPD’s commitment to the development of the Special Victims Division,” said Sewell. “Our goal is for [the division] to be the national model. I believe any constructive review of our practices in the Special Victims Division will show that the NYPD has been evolving and improving in this area but we will be transparent and open to criticism as well as ideas in the process.”

Source: TEST FEED1

‘Tiger King’ star Doc Antle indicted on wildlife trafficking, money laundering charges

A federal grand jury has indicted Bhagavan “Doc” Antle, one of the stars of “Tiger King,” on charges of wildlife trafficking and money laundering after he was arrested earlier this month. 

Antle — who is the owner of Myrtle Beach Safari, a wildlife preserve in South Carolina — gained national attention from his appearances in the Netflix documentary series, which focuses on Oklahoma zoo operator Joe Exotic. Exotic has been accused of mistreating wildlife and is serving a prison sentence for planning to kill Carole Baskin, a rival. 

The grand jury also issued indictments against Andrew Sawyer and Meredith Bybee, two of Antle’s employees. Charles Sammut, the owner of Vision Quest Ranch in California, and Jason Clay, the owner of Franklin Drive Thru Safari in Texas, were also indicted. 

The indictment alleges that Antle, at times along with Bybee, Sammut and Clay, illegally trafficked animals including lemurs, cheetahs and a chimpanzee and produced false records on them, according to an FBI release. 

The release states that the indictment also accuses Antle and Sayer of laundering more than $500,000 in cash that they thought were proceeds from an operation to smuggle undocumented immigrants into the United States across the Mexican border. Antle used bulk cash receipts to buy animals that he could not write checks for and planned to cover it up by inflating the number of tourists he received at his wildlife preserve, the indictment states. 

Antle and Sawyer both face up to 20 years in prison for money laundering. All five defendants face up to five years for wildlife trafficking. 

A federal judge set a $250,000 bond for Antle, and he will be confined to his wildlife preserve in South Carolina. 

Antle is also facing a series of charges for other alleged violations of the law. He is facing two felony counts of wildlife trafficking and conspiracy to commit wildlife trafficking, 13 misdemeanor counts of conspiracy to violate the Endangered Species Act and a charge of animal cruelty in Virginia. 

He has received more than 35 Department of Agriculture violations for mistreating animals throughout his career.

Source: TEST FEED1

Workers who work alongside robots more likely to have mental health effects: study

American workers who work alongside robots are more likely to suffer negative mental health effects, despite being less prone to physical injury, according to a recent study.  

For the study, researchers analyzed data on workplace injuries in the U.S., finding that injuries were reduced by 1.2 cases per 100 workers in regions with one standard deviation increase in robot exposure. But in regions where there were significant numbers working with robots, there was an increase of 37.8 cases per 100,000 workers in drug or alcohol related deaths.  

Osea Giuntella, an expert in labor economics and economic demography and an assistant professor at the University of Pittsburgh, said in a news release that although there’s evidence how robots affect workers’ employment and wages, researchers “still know very little about the effects on physical and mental health.” 

“On one hand, robots could take some of the most strenuous, physically intensive, and risky tasks reducing workers’ risk,” Giuntella said. “On the other hand, the competition with robots may increase the pressure on workers who may lose their jobs or be forced to retrain. Of course, labor market institutions may play an important role, particularly in a transition phase.” 

America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news. 

Researchers also evaluated data on how automation affected German workers. They found a similar decrease in physical injury, but they found no significant change in mental health outcomes. The study found that in Germany, the same one standard deviation change in robot exposure led to a 4 percent decline in physical job intensity and a 5 percent decline in disability. 

Giuntella said this difference might be due to laws designed to protect Germany’s workforce.  

“Robot exposure did not cause disruptive job losses in Germany; Germany has a much higher employment protection legislation,” Giuntella said.  

“Our evidence finds that, in both contexts, robots have a positive impact on the physical health of workers by reducing injuries and work- related disabilities,” Giuntella continued. “However, our findings suggests that, in contexts where workers were less protected, competition with robots was associated with a rise in mental health problems.” 

READ MORE STORIES FROM CHANGING AMERICA 

HERE’S WHEN ADULTS GAIN THE MOST WEIGHT: STUDY 

HERE ARE THE BEST-RUN CITIES IN AMERICA: REPORT 

FIVE FACTS ABOUT ABORTION YOU SHOULD KNOW 

LAWSUIT CHALLENGES FLORIDA ‘STOP WOKE ACT’ 

MOST SAY COST OF LIVING IS HOLDING THEM BACK FROM AMERICAN 

Source: TEST FEED1

West Virginia AG calls Supreme Court EPA ruling a 'huge victory'

West Virginia’s Attorney General Patrick Morrisey on Thursday applauded the Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling that limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ability to deal with power plants, in a major blow to the agency’s ability to regulate climate change.

The majority ruled that Congress did not authorize the EPA to induce a shift to cleaner energy sources.

Morrisey told Fox News, “This is a huge victory of our American system of government.“

West Virginia has been at the forefront a few Republican-led states and coal companies in their effort to limit the EPA’s power to issue regulations that would allow the curtailing of carbon emissions.

Morrisey added that the case is “a very important victory for separation of powers, for the rule of law” and what he said would ensure that “overreaching government knows it has limits.”

“This is about maintaining the separation of powers, not climate change,” he said in a statement. “And we’re not done. My office will continue to fight for the rights of West Virginians when those in Washington try to go too far in asserting broad powers without the people’s support.”

He added that “We’ve said one simple thing — that if you have a major issue of the day, Congress needs to be the decider, not an unelected bureaucracy. That’s what today’s decision means.”

Morrisey also pushed back on Sen. Charles Schumer’s (D-N.Y.) statement calling the decision “devastating”.

He shared that the Supreme Court decision means that Congress has the power to regulate and legislate on the issue.

“I think that when people start to scream that the Earth is falling, they have to go back to the fact that for many years, these agencies have been running amok. They’ve tried to regulate in areas where they’ve lacked power to do so. This is Congress’s realm, and I think he [Schumer] needs to look themselves in the mirror and say, this is Congress’s job and not that of an unelected bureaucracy,” he added.

His statement comes as some Democrat lawmakers called for Congress to pass legislation codifying the the EPA’s authority to tackle climate change. Close to 200 Congressional Democrats joined an amicus brief in January on the side of the EPA in the case. 

Source: TEST FEED1

The frightening implications of Justice Thomas’ press freedom dissent

The Supreme Court announced Monday it will not hear a case that challenges the landmark press freedom ruling in New York Times v. Sullivan of 1964. The current precedent remains — guarding media from superfluous defamation suits filed by public officials and public figures.

For now.

The appeal in question involved Coral Ridge Ministries Media and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Coral Ridge, a Christian nonprofit group, sued the SPLC for listing them as a “hate group” due to their opposition to LGBTQ+ rights. In 2017, Coral Ridge claimed defamation because the categorization disqualified the nonprofit from participating in the AmazonSmile donations program. The suit challenged the standards set in NYT v. Sullivandecision nearly 60 years ago.

When the court announced it would not hear the appeal, Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter. Thomas suggested that it was time for the court to reconsider the “actual malice” standard which makes it difficult for public figures and officials to sue media organizations in defamation cases. It’s a standard that has been underscored in several recent high-profile federal court cases, including the recently settled libel case involving Sarah Palin, former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice-presidential nominee, against the New York Times. 

The Supreme Court’s decision to turn away the Coral Ridge appeal brought me a moment of relief. But I also recognize that my relief is temporary. 

Thomas’ dissent should not be overlooked. His words signal a direct assault on the public’s need to know the activities of their legislatures, courts and other public servants. When we eliminate the safeguards that allow the media to seek and report the truth, we infringe upon the public’s right to know the truth. 

It’s a violation of our constitutionally protected right to free press. It is a continuation of a growing movement to impede the essential work of journalists. 

So, today, I feel relieved about the court’s decision. 

Yet, I’m preparing for decisions that are currently happening across the nation and could continue coming. Those decisions in courts and legislatures have the same damaging implications on press freedom, whether it’s through public records or the right to record police. We cannot overlook these decisions — no matter how incremental or inconsequential they seem. 

Press freedom and the public’s need to know depend on it.

Dan Shelley is president and chief executive officer at the Radio Television Digital News Association, the nation’s largest association dedicated to broadcast and digital journalists.

Source: TEST FEED1

Campaign Report — 2024 chatter grows on both sides

Welcome to The Hill’s Campaign Report, tracking all things related to the 2022 midterm elections. You can expect this newsletter in your inbox every Tuesday and Thursday leading up to November’s election.  

Email us tips and feedback: Max Greenwood (mgreenwood@thehill.com), Julia Manchester (jmanchester@thehill.com) and Caroline Vakil (cvakil@thehill.com). 

Someone forward this newsletter to you? Subscribe here.

Let the White House jockeying commence

The 2022 midterm campaign season is heating up, but this week it seems like 2024 speculation has taken the spotlight on both sides of the aisle and we can hardly keep up.

On Thursday, former President Trump, who continues to hint at a 2024 run, suggested that he would be open to Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) being his running mate if he launches a presidential bid.

“Well I get along with him,” Trump told Newsmax’s Rob Finnerty when asked about the possibility of a Trump-DeSantis ticket. “I was very responsible for his success, because I endorsed him and he went up like a rocketship.”

A DeSantis surge? Trump has led most hypothetical 2024 GOP primaries, but DeSantis normally trails him. But last week, a University of New Hampshire survey showed the Florida governor leading the former president 39 percent to 37 percent among likely New Hampshire Republican primary voters. Of course, most other polls nationally and other states tend to show Trump leading, but it’s proof that DeSantis’s star continues to grow among Republican voters.

The two men have insisted they have a good relationship and were seen chatting at a wedding in Palm Beach back in April. Still, Trump has reportedly complained privately about DeSantis’s political ambitions, and DeSantis has declined on multiple occasions to rule out a presidential run.

Making the early-state rounds: As the Trump-DeSantis chatter continues, other Republicans are making campaign moves in early states. The Hill’s Mychael Schnell reports that former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley is slated to attend a fundraiser in Iowa with Gov. Kim Reynolds (R). Haley is also slated to make an appearance at the Feenstra family picnic, hosted by Iowa Rep. Randy Feenstra (R) on Thursday.

And Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s (R) is also being thrown into the mix less than a year after he won his first even political bid in Virginia’s gubernatorial election. The Washington Post reports that Youngkin has been meeting Republican mega donors and has plans to headline a Nebraska GOP event.

Now onto the Democrats…

While President Biden and Vice President Harris have repeatedly said the president has plans to run in 2024, speculation is still growing about what many critics say is the thin Democratic bench going into the next presidential election.

Biden is facing pushback over his handling of the economy as inflation and gas prices hit record levels, with his approval rating sitting just above 40 percent. On top of that, the president is turning 80 this year.

Pritzker draws speculation: Some Democrats, particularly those in the party’s progressive flank, have voiced frustrations that those in the party’s establishment (i.e. Biden) acted too late on issues like abortion in the wake of the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker said on Thursday that Biden could stand to face a primary challenger if he decides to run again in 2024.

“That’s not something I’m encouraging, but it’s certainly possible. We’ve seen it in the past,” Pritzker said. The governor was recently in New Hampshire, an early-voting state, which drew immediate speculation he could be planning his own run.

And there’s even been renewed chatter of a potential run from none other than former 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

The Hill’s Amie Parnes reports: “The overturning of Roe v. Wade by a Supreme Court that includes three judges nominated by Donald Trump, along with devastating Tuesday testimony to the Jan. 6 panel about the former president’s temper tantrums as a mob attacked the Capitol, have Clinton and her allies seeing new vindication in her 2016 warnings about the mistake of electing Trump.”

The Roe fallout continues

Democrats and political groups are using the Supreme Court’s decision last week, which eliminated the constitutional right to an abortion, as a way to galvanize voters ahead of is expected to be an already challenging midterm environment for the party.

Sen. Maggie Hassan’s (D-N.H.) campaign is out with a new ad on Thursday, calling the decision one that “catapults us backwards” and seeks to show her as a proponent of protecting personal freedoms in the state. Hassan happens to be one of several vulnerable Senate Democrats up for reelection this November.

Money pours in: Rep. Val Demings’s (D-Fla.) senatorial campaign has already created a website called rubiosplanforwomen.com seeking to hit her opponent Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) over his stance on the medical procedure.

Meanwhile, groups like the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Planned Parenthood Action Fund have launched ad buys in battleground states in an effort to target lawmakers over the issue or highlight politicians opening the door to a more national ban on the issue. The big question remains if the issue of abortion will be enough to excite Democrats’ base as the country amid President Biden’s lagging approval ratings and other pressing issues like inflation.

Biden’s filibuster move

President Biden made headlines on Thursday when he called for the Senate to carve out an exception to the 60-vote filibuster to codify abortion rights after the Supreme Court overturned the precedent set by Roe v. Wade.

“The most important thing to be clear about is I believe we have to codify Roe v. Wade in the law, and the way to do that is to make sure the Congress votes to do that,” Biden said speaking from the NATO Summit in Madrid.

The comments earned praise from Democrats, including progressives. Pennsylvania Democratic Senate candidate praised the move in a statement, saying “Good.”

“Send me to D.C., and I will proudly cast that 51st vote to eliminate the filibuster and codify the right to an abortion into law,” Fetterman said.

A walk down memory lane: While Biden’s comments are sure to enthuse progressives over his openness to changing filibuster rules, that doesn’t necessarily mean Democrats might have the votes to create a carveout.

In the wake of the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion last month that indicated the high court would overturn Roe v. Wade, Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said that “the filibuster is the only protection we have in democracy” in his defense of the 60-vote rule.

And while Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) criticized the draft ruling at the time of its leak, a statement she released on the matter did not suggest her defense of filibuster would change, saying “protections in the Senate safeguarding against the erosion of women’s access to health care have been used half-a-dozen times in the past ten years, and are more important now than ever.”

MAPPING OUT THE HOUSE

The congressional lines are now in place for all 50 states ahead of November after New Hampshire became the last state late last month to finalize their House map. The Hill’s Max Greenwood helped us break down what those congressional lines translate to for Democrats and Republicans.

The takeaways: Among some of his big takeaways, they provide some “good news, bad news” for Democrats. Democrats gained a handful of districts that tilt in their direction – they have blue legislatures in Oregon and Illinois, who passed favorable Democratic maps, to thank for that. Democrats were also spared from an aggressive Republican gerrymander in North Carolina after a state court weighed in.

But, but, but: Republicans are still anticipated to gain three to four House seats in November, in part because Democratic gerrymander maps in New York and Maryland were tossed out. Plus, a congressional map offered by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R), widely seen as a possible 2024 GOP contender, will stand for the 2022 midterms. That map creates four more Republican-leaning districts and effectively guts a North Florida district currently held by Rep. Al Lawson (D-Fla.).

That’s it for today. Thanks for reading and check out The Hill’s Campaign page for the latest news and coverage. See you Tuesday. 

Source: TEST FEED1