Category: texas

  • A sign reads "Bans don't stop abortions, they make them dangerous" at a march for reproductive freedom on October 2, 2021, in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

    With the Supreme Court set to hear arguments on two high-profile abortion cases later this year, many are beginning to question what would happen if the Court overturned or severely curtailed the abortion access rights that were laid out in its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

    A report released on Thursday by the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health care advocacy organization, reveals that consequences could be dire for millions of people seeking abortions in the future.

    The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, is set to hear two cases on abortion restrictions imposed by states. In November, the Court will hear a case relating to Texas’s six-week abortion ban, which has thus far evaded judicial review due to a unique and strategic enforcement method that incentivizes private citizens to sue abortion providers for sums of $10,000. In December, the Court will hear a case involving a Mississippi law that banned abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy; the state’s Attorney General Lynn Fitch has presented this case as a direct challenge to the Roe decision.

    If either of those cases result in Roe being undone, abortion access across the country would be curtailed drastically — but the report from the Guttmacher Institute details just how devastating this decision could be.

    According to the report, 26 states across the U.S. are certain to effectively ban abortion if Roe is overturned. As it stands right now, nine states continue to have abortion bans on the books from before Roe was decided, and those laws would go back into effect if the Supreme Court undoes the ruling from almost 50 years ago. Another 12 states have “trigger” laws in place, statutes that automatically ban abortion as soon as the federal government ends enforcement of Roe, while five states have a “near-total” ban on abortion that would also be enacted, the report says.

    In all likelihood, those states wouldn’t be alone in curtailing abortion, the organization warned.

    “Beyond the 26 states certain or likely to attempt to ban abortion immediately, other states have demonstrated hostility toward abortion by adopting multiple restrictions in the past, but are not likely to ban abortion in the near future,” the Guttmacher Institute report said. “However, this analysis may change in the next few years.”

    A total overturning of Roe is unnecessary for curtailing abortion access right away. Eleven states, not including Texas, currently have a six-week ban on abortion on the books that isn’t being enforced but could be, depending on the Court’s future ruling.

    The outcome of a ruling ending or severely limiting Roe’s protections would be devastating, affecting around 36 million individuals of reproductive age who would have to travel to neighboring states or beyond to undergo what is a safe and routine medical procedure.

    The report noted that a person seeking an abortion may have to travel hundreds of miles just to reach an abortion clinic.

    “You’re talking about people in Texas and Mississippi traveling vast distances, not just trying to cross the border, but trying to go through multiple states in order to access care,” said Elizabeth Nash, the principal policy associate for state issues at the Guttmacher Institute. “The distances will take you days to access an abortion and return home.”

    A person in Texas would have to travel up to 525 miles to get an abortion, while a person in Mississippi might have to go as many as 428 miles to the nearest provider, in a state where the dismantling of Roe would not threaten abortion rights. In Florida, a person could have to travel up to 567 miles to get an abortion out of state; in Louisiana, the distance could be as long as 630 miles.

    If the Court overturns Roe or enables restrictions on it, the outcome will cause tremendous harm, particularly to underserved groups like low-income people, people of color, and LGBTQ people.

    “There can be no compromise on abortion — not at 15 weeks, not at 20 weeks, not in any context — because as this data makes clear, a restriction on abortion anywhere means less access for all, everywhere,” wrote Caroline Reilly, reporting fellow for Rewire News Group, regarding the Guttmacher Institute’s findings.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Woman reaches for book on shelves in library

    A Republican lawmaker in Texas announced that he has opened an investigation into public school libraries across the state, asking districts to report whether they have books from a list of hundreds of titles dealing with issues like race, gender and sexuality.

    A letter addressed to the Texas Education Agency from state Rep. Matt Krause (R), who is chair of the state House Committee on General Investigating, asked that superintendents of schools scour their school libraries to determine whether they have titles from a list of 850 books he deems to be problematic. Krause also asked for additional information on those books and others like them, including how much money the districts spent on obtaining them.

    Krause specifically wants to know whether these books are available for students to check out from their libraries. Any books that “contain material that might make students feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress because of their race or sex or convey that a student, by virtue of their race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously” should be reported to him, his letter said.

    Krause didn’t say that the books should be removed from the shelves. But in his letter, he cited five school districts in the state that removed books from their libraries in response to complaints from parents following passage of a new law barring critical race theory or any other concepts that are related to race or racism in the classroom.

    That legislation, which was passed in June, restricts schools from teaching curricula that the state has deemed contentious. The overly broad nature of the law has already led to some disturbing outcomes, including in one Texas school district where the administration told teachers they had to teach “opposing” perspectives of the Holocaust.

    The list of books Krause is seeking information on is broad, and contains many award-winning authors. One of the books, “The Confessions of Nat Turner” by William Styron, won the Pulitzer Prize in 1967. A book written by Ta-Nehisi Coates called “Between the World and Me” is also on the list, as is “How to Be An Anti-Racist” by Ibram X. Kendi.

    Books on sexuality are being targeted by Krause, including “LGBT Families” by Leanne K. Currie-McGhee and “The Underground Guide to Teenage Sexuality: An Essential Handbook for Today’s Teens and Parents” by Michael J. Basso. The graphic novel iteration of “The Handmaid’s Tale” is also on the lawmaker’s list.

    Author Kalynn Bayron, who wrote the young adult LGBTQ book “Cinderella Is Dead,” which is featured on Krause’s list, wrote in a social media post that in spite of the lawmaker’s pursuit, young people would still read books like hers.

    “I’d like Matt Krause to know that nothing he does will keep my work out of the hands of young readers,” Bayron said on Twitter. “Texas educators are, for the most part, amazing people and we work together to make sure the work gets to the kids who need it most.”

    State Rep. Victoria Neave, a Democrat from Dallas who is vice chair of the investigations committee, called Krause’s inquiry a political move. Krause is running to become Texas’s next state attorney general.

    “This is an obvious attack on diversity and an attempt to score political points at the expense of our children’s education,” Neave said in a statement.

    Brandon Rottinghaus, a political science professor at the University of Houston, agreed that Krause’s actions do appear to be based on politics.

    “He’s not well known statewide, and so he needs to put down a pretty tall conservative flag to get notice,” Rottinghaus told The Texas Tribune.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • People gather outside the Supreme Court as gerrymandering cases are heard on March 26, 2019.

    As dozens of states across the country prepare to begin or finalize the Constitutionally mandated process of redrawing their congressional districts, most Americans say they would prefer a nonpartisan commission take the lead in producing such maps, rather than state legislatures.

    Most maps are redrawn, however, by legislatures, which means they’re often crafted by the political party in power, creating a conflict of interest. In Texas, for example, congressional lines that were recently redrawn and signed into law by Gov. Greg Abbott (R) will likely keep Republicans in the majority within that state’s delegation until at least the next census takes place.

    Americans, for the most part, are untrusting of this manner of drawing political maps. An Economist/YouGov poll from August found that 50 percent of voters would prefer an independent commission to draw their own state’s congressional districts, while only 17 percent said they would like legislatures to be in charge.

    But in spite of those preferences, most states employ the legislature-drawn method of redrawing maps, with 33 states using that process as their way of doing so. In just eight states are independent commissions used primarily to redraw congressional boundaries, while two other states use a hybrid model.

    Unsurprisingly, Americans view the way maps are set to be drawn over the next year with a deeply skeptical eye. Just 16 percent of voters — less than one-in-six in the U.S. — in that same Economist/YouGov poll think their state’s districts will be redrawn fairly. Forty-four percent say they won’t be drafted in a fair way, while another 40 percent are unsure if they will be.

    Americans are right to have misgivings about the way maps are being redrawn. According to the non-partisan anti-corruption group RepresentUs, at least 35 states are at risk of having their maps “rigged” — that is, to favor one party over another in an unfair way — during this cycle of redistricting.

    “The redistricting laws in these states provide little protection against politicians manipulating district maps for partisan or personal gain,” the organization’s report read. “Unless these systems change in the next few months, more than 188 million people will live with the threat of gerrymandering and rigged maps for the next 10 years.”

    The group, like many others with similar aims, had called on Congress to pass the For the People Act, which would have required all states to adopt nonpartisan redistricting processes. However, that bill was blocked by a Republican filibuster in June, and a similar bill, the Freedom to Vote Act (which would have provided safeguards to discourage partisan gerrymandering), was also blocked this past month.

    While many states have yet to finish their redistricting processes (with a number of them not set to be completed until next year), six states have already finalized their maps. Court challenges to the boundaries they have drawn, however, have just started.

    Several Latinx groups in Texas, for example, have already filed a lawsuit after the state legislature passed the redrawn maps last week. While Texas has gained two additional congressional seats as a result of last year’s census, the legislature did not produce any new seats that represent an area where nonwhite populations are the majority of a district’s population — in spite of the fact that Latinx people accounted for more than half of the state’s growth since 2010.

    “Texas has a unique record of disregarding the growth of the Latino community that goes back decades and leads to successful lawsuits” like what was filed last week, said Thomas Saenz, president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, to NBC News. “The maps are typical of that long-standing and unique record of disregard for Latino civil rights.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The law requires schools to identify athletes based on the sex noted on their birth certificate either at the time of birth, or soon after it — birth certificates modified after transition will no longer be accepted.

    Texas Gov. Greg Abbott on Monday signed a bill that would ban K-12 transgender students from playing on sports teams that match their gender identity — the first such bill to become law in the state, after dozens of similar bills were introduced and debated over three special legislative sessions.

    The bill is the first piece of anti-trans legislation in Texas to actually become law in recent years. The state’s effort to restrict trans Texans’ bathroom usage failed to reach the governor’s desk in 2017 after a similarly intense special session. Texas is now the ninth state this year to pass legislation restricting how trans athletes can join school sports.

    LGBTQ+ advocates are worried about the direct aftermath of the bill, which could subject trans students in interscholastic sports to scrutiny and harassment, as well as the potential for similar bills targeting trans youth to become law in Texas if another special session is called.

    “It’s just panic right now … people trying to understand what exactly this looks like,” said Emmett Schelling, executive director for the Transgender Education Network of Texas.

    More families have been reaching out to the organization than usual to ask how their child could be impacted by the law, especially parents with kids who had previously planned to participate in school sports and trans kids who aren’t totally out at school, Schelling said.

    He described feeling “just the overall dread of not knowing how we can really calculate what the impact and the harm, outcome, will be.”

    The new law requires schools to identify athletes based on the sex noted on their birth certificate either at the time of birth, or soon after it — which would force trans students to compete on teams that do not match their current gender identity. Texas’ regulatory body for high school athletics had previously allowed students to compete under updated birth certificates.

    How schools would enforce the law — by determining whether a child’s birth certificate has been updated because of a clerical error, or because they have updated their gender marker — is unclear, and likely open to interpretation from district to district.

    Schools upholding the new law could also be vulnerable to lawsuits, in part because of the potential variation in enforcement among the roughly 1,200 Texas school districts, said Adri Pèrez, a policy and advocacy strategist for the ACLU based in Austin, Texas.

    “There has been debate since this bill was first filed about what the enforcement mechanism would be,” they said. “It would open it up so that anybody could bring a gender challenge against another student because of their athletic performance, and/or appearance.”

    The ACLU is still exploring legal options for mounting a lawsuit against the bill, Pèrez said. The civil rights group sued over a similar law targeting trans athletes in West Virginia that had gone into effect this year. That law was temporarily blocked by a federal judge in July.

    Even before the passage of Texas’ law targeting K-12 sports, the debate over anti-trans bills has caused increased bullying and mental health crises across the state, advocates say.

    Since anti-trans bills began to be debated at the start of the year, Equality Texas has gotten many more reports of bullying and harassment against LGBTQ+ students than they did last year when they first began tracking the incidents, said Ricardo Martinez, the group’s chief executive.

    Examples include a pansexual freshman in Royse City who said she and her other queer friends were harassed by a student who sprayed them with holy water at lunch and a trans middle schooler in the greater Austin area who tried to take her own life after being bullied.

    “It is a marked difference from last year,” Martinez said.

    The Trevor Project said last month that crisis calls and texts from LGBTQ+ youth in Texas have grown over 150 percent when compared with the same time period in 2020. In those calls, some trans and nonbinary youth said they felt stressed, were using self-harm or considering suicide because of anti-LGBTQ laws being debated in the state.

    Advocates have repeatedly warned that rhetoric surrounding the bills, which characterizes trans girls as boys and in Texas has devolved into arguments over what “transgender” and “cisgender” mean, could also spur violent and potentially deadly attacks against trans people — although more research is needed to understand a direct link.

    In many states where anti-trans bills have been proposed, there is a lack of evidence of trans people posing a threat to sports teams, or even playing sports at all within some states.

    One example is Arkansas. Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson compared the state’s sports bill and the state’s effort to ban gender-affirming care for minors — the latter of which he opposed — as a theoretical fight vs. a fight that could have real consequences for trans kids.

    Hutchinson acknowledged in May that “no one has cited an example of where trans athletes have tried to compete [in the state]” — as did West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice in April, when asked for examples of trans athletes trying to get an unfair advantage in sports.

    Texas’ third special session has ended, Abbott has shot down calls from within his party for a fourth session, and the next regular legislative session starts in 2023. Still, fears of trans kids again being named a priority in the Texas legislature remain.

    “I think we can likely expect more anti-trans bills given the current leadership,” Schelling told The 19th over text.

    In a statement that could also signal the future of anti-trans bills in Texas, Abbott reportedly promised supporters at a Kingwood Tea Party meeting on Tuesday night that laws targeting trans youth will be advanced in “every single session that we have.” The governor’s office declined to comment and Abbott’s campaign office did not respond to a request for comment.

    Other bills previously introduced in Texas across this year’s special sessions have aimed to classify gender-affirming treatments like hormones and surgeries as child abuse and ban puberty blockers provided by a physician. Some of those bills died in the House or were reintroduced in the third special session but did not move forward.

    Two issues are top of mind for advocates if the governor again lists bills targeting trans youth as a priority: efforts to restrict people’s ability to update gender markers on birth certificates and bans on gender-affirming care for minors.

    “We have also seen that his supporters have expressed desire for the sports ban to also begin to encroach into collegiate level sports,” Schelling said via text, referencing a reported Q&A during the Kingwood Tea Party meeting. “I wouldn’t rule anything out.”

    Although many states have introduced bills targeting gender-affirming care for trans youth, nearly every anti-trans bill that has actually made it into law this year has been about sports. Arkansas’ law criminalizing gender-affirming care for minors was temporarily blocked by a judge in July and is still working through the courts, as the state appealed the injunction in September.

    In contrast, birth certificates have been at the core of debate surrounding the new law on K-12 sports in Texas — and some lawmakers, like Republican state Sen. Charles Perry, have previously introduced bills that would keep minors from updating their birth certificates to match their gender identity.

    Vivian Topping, director of advocacy and civic engagement at the Equality Federation, a coalition of statewide LGBTQ+ organizations, said that efforts to target birth certificates are what she’s most concerned about right now, alongside health care and athlete bans being brought across more states.

    “Anti-trans attacks are not going away and they’ll continue in whatever form our opponents can create,” she said over text.

    Although the Equality Federation hasn’t tracked bills solely focused on birth certificates in its state legislation tracker, Topping estimated that only a handful of such bills have been introduced across the country this year.

    “We have seen that in other states before … so I can see where the fear would come with these athlete bans,” she said.

    Martinez said he is worried that Texas passing its first anti-trans bill of the year could also influence how other state legislatures press the issue.

    “It’s a huge deal,” Martinez said. “I’m afraid of what’s going to happen when other state legislatures begin pre-filing bills.”

    Schelling said that even though the landscape can seem grim, he has to believe in the progress of the movement to keep going.

    “I think for me to keep doing this work, I can’t tell myself that it’s never going to end. I know that we’ve seen progress, even in the midst of this,” he said, pointing to the hundreds of people — including trans Texans and their families — who have traveled to the state capitol multiple times this year to testify against the bills.

    One of those advocates who has frequently gone to the capitol, Rev. Remington Johnson, said over text that she is proud of the effort that advocates have spent in the past year, as Texas introduced the most anti-trans bills of any other state in the country.

    “We did everything we could to stop, slow down or amend these bills,” Johnson said. “Only a single one got through.”

    Although the fight doesn’t feel like it’s over for some parents and trans Texans in the state, after months of testimony left them exhausted, a brief reprieve is expected.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Texas State Representatives Mary Ann Perez, center, and Christina Morales, right, attend a news conference with members of the Texas House Democratic Caucus outside the U.S. Capitol on August 6, 2021.

    The Texas legislature passed a new congressional map on Monday that gives disproportionate favor to Republicans and marginalizes the influence of nonwhite voters.

    The map was passed by the Senate and the House largely on party lines, with nearly all Republicans voting in favor. Democrats have condemned the map, saying that the redistricting process was squeezed into the legislature’s special 30 day session, giving little time for discussion or public input. Republican Gov. Greg Abbott is expected to sign the map into law, which will give Republicans disproportionate control over the state for the next decade.

    According to the Census Bureau, Texas’s population is about 41 percent white non-Latinx, nearly 40 percent Latinx, approximately 5 percent Asian and nearly 13 percent Black. Under the maps approved by the legislature, however, white people represent a majority in 60 percent of the congressional districts, as Mother Jones’s Ari Berman points out. Meanwhile, Latinx people represent a majority in only 18 percent of districts, and Black and Asian people do not represent a majority in any district.

    Though the Texas GOP’s redistricted maps were already discriminatory in 2010, this round is slated to disenfranchise nonwhite voters even more than before. Whereas Latinx residents represented a majority in eight districts over the past decade, there will only be seven such districts in the new maps, despite Latinx residents making up about half of Texas’s new residents over the last ten years.

    Due to the state’s population growth, Texas will be gaining two additional seats in the House. But, despite nearly all of the new population being people of color, the new map gives both seats to majority-white districts.

    The new maps also consolidate and empower the GOP in particular, in the year after Texas was briefly poised to go blue in the 2020 election. Under the new map, the number of safe Republican seats would double from 11 to 22, with nearly the entire state becoming deep red districts with some Democratic strongholds like Dallas, Houston and Austin.

    Democratic state lawmakers criticized the new map. “What we’re doing in passing this congressional map is a disservice to the people of Texas,” said Rep. Rafael Anchía before the vote. “What we’re doing is hurtful to millions of Texans — it’s shameful.”

    Texas Democrats had fled the state this summer in attempts to block the Republicans’ voter suppression package, but were forced to return and restore quorum in the legislature when Republicans threatened to arrest them.

    Several civil rights groups have sued Texas over the map. The plaintiffs, represented by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), say that the new maps violate the Voting Rights Act because they disenfranchise Latinx voters.

    “Violation of voting rights is not a partisan issue,” said Thomas A. Saenz, president and general counsel for MALDEF. “Still, Texas has a uniquely deplorable record in its consistent disregard of Latino population growth over half a century of redistricting.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • On Friday, the Biden administration announced that it planned to appeal to the Supreme Court an order from a lower court issued last week, which kept in place a restrictive Texas law that outlaws abortion after the sixth week of pregnancy.

    A three-judge panel in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit lifted a previous injunction from an appellate judge that had blocked the law’s enforcement. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) then sought to have that panel place a temporary stay on its own ruling until formal arguments against the law could be heard, which it refused to do on Thursday.

    In response, the DOJ said it would appeal the Fifth Circuit Court’s refusal to place a stay on the law, also known as Senate Bill 8, directly to the Supreme Court — but it didn’t state specifically when it would make such an appeal.

    “The Justice Department intends to ask the Supreme Court to vacate the 5th Circuit’s stay of the preliminary injunction against Texas Senate Bill 8,” a statement from DOJ spokesperson Anthony Coley said.

    The Texas law bars all abortions after six weeks of pregnancy — so early on in the pregnancy that many people don’t yet realize they are pregnant — and contains no exceptions for rape or incest. Rather than having the state enforce the law, private citizens are incentivized to sue people they believe helped someone procure an abortion, including abortion providers themselves. Petitioners are allowed to sue for sums of up to $10,000.

    The DOJ has previously asserted its standing and ability to sue in order to block the Texas law, claiming it had a vested interest in upholding national standards on abortion access that have been established for decades.

    “The United States has the authority to seek redress from this Court against the State of Texas, particularly in light of the procedural obstacles that Texas erected to shield S.B. 8 from judicial scrutiny in suits by directly affected persons,” the DOJ wrote in a federal court filing in mid-September.

    According to Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School, the possibility that the DOJ could convince the Supreme Court to agree to a stay on the law’s execution is improbable, due to an order from the court in September that announced it wouldn’t intervene in the matter.

    “It’s an incredible longshot that the Supreme Court would say, no, we’re going to push pause on this Texas law,” Levinson said in an interview with NPR last week.

    Texas asserts that it cannot be sued over the law because the state is not responsible for its enforcement — an argument that was endorsed by the conservative majority of the Supreme Court, who refused to place an injunction on the law.

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented with the order, calling the directive from the court “stunning.”

    “Presented with an application to enjoin a flagrantly unconstitutional law engineered to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny, a majority of Justices have opted to bury their heads in the sand,” she said.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • During a training session with teachers last week, a Texas school district administrator instructed teachers to present “opposing” perspectives about the Holocaust in their classrooms.

    Gina Peddy, the Carroll Independent School District’s executive director of curriculum and instruction in Southlake, Texas, was secretly recorded during the October 8 staff meeting. The audio of the exchange between Peddy and teachers attending the meeting was shared with NBC News.

    The training session happened four days after a fourth-grade teacher in the district was reprimanded by the school board for having a book entitled “This Book Is Anti-Racist” in their classroom. Parents of a child in the class had complained to the district that the book went against their “morals and faith.”

    During the meeting, Peddy emphasized that teachers in the district should abide by newly-passed state statutes. “Try to remember the concepts of [Texas House Bill] 3979,” she said, referring to a Texas law passed earlier this year requiring teachers to present multiple perspectives on topics that are “widely debated and currently controversial.”

    “Make sure that if you have a book on the Holocaust that you have one that has an opposing, that has other perspectives,” Peddy continued.

    When teachers asked how there could be opposing viewpoints on the Holocaust, Peddy responded, “Believe me, that’s come up.”

    Clay Robison, a spokesperson for Texas State Teachers Association, condemned Peddy’s interpretation of the statute.

    “We find it reprehensible for an educator to require a Holocaust denier to get equal treatment with the facts of history,” Robison said. “That’s absurd. It’s worse than absurd. And this law does not require it.”

    Upon release of the audio, a spokesperson for the district said in a statement:

    Our district recognizes that all Texas teachers are in a precarious position with the latest legal requirements… Our purpose is to support our teachers in ensuring they have all of the professional development, resources and materials needed. Our district has not and will not mandate books be removed nor will we mandate that classroom libraries be unavailable.

    In light of Peddy’s remarks, some Republicans tried to defend the statue, with one claiming that Carroll Independent Schools “just got it wrong.”

    “School administrators should know the difference between factual historical events and fiction,” Texas Sen. Kelly Hancock (R) said. “No legislation is suggesting the action this administrator is promoting.”

    However, many educators have opposed the Texas law since its first introduction in the state legislature, noting that it was too vague and that it would make it difficult for teachers to have conversations on important topics in classrooms.

    The law also bans the teaching of critical race theory in K-12 schools. Critical race theory is most commonly taught at university level, and isn’t being taught in K-12 schools anywhere in the state — but conservatives have deliberately turned it into a new boogeyman for parents across the U.S. to unduly fear.

    Beyond that, the law requires teachers to “give deference to both sides” on historical topics — a mandate that many say legitimizes false historical narratives, and limits critical discussion about topics like racism and white supremacy in schools.

    “If we’re not allowing teachers the opportunity to have these honest and intellectually appropriate conversations with their feelings about the past, then we’re basically silencing those communities,” third-grade teacher Lakeisha Patterson said in the run-up to the law’s passage, adding that the bill would effectively be “whitewashing history.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Protesters take part in the Women's March and Rally for Abortion Justice at the State Capitol in Austin, Texas, on October 2, 2021.

    A federal judge has blocked enforcement of the near-total Texas abortion ban that went into effect last month, which has been condemned by reproductive rights advocates as dangerous and outright cruel.

    In a 113-page decision, the U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman denounced the ban as “flagrantly unconstitutional,” siding with President Joe Biden’s Department of Justice, which brought the suit. “From the moment S.B. 8 went into effect,” Pitman wrote, people “have been unlawfully prevented from exercising control over their own lives in ways that are protected by the Constitution.”

    S.B. 8 is the most restrictive abortion ban in the country; legal experts say it doesn’t just undermine rights protected by Roe v. Wade, but also international law. The law bans abortion so early on in the pregnancy that most people don’t even know they’re pregnant, and doesn’t allow exceptions for cases of rape or incest.

    S.B. 8 also places the onus of enforcement on private citizens rather than the state, an especially cruel move that incentivizes bounty hunters to seek out abortion providers, or anyone else who may have aided a person in ending their pregnancy, by rewarding them with a minimum of $10,000 from the state.

    Attorney General Merrick Garland hailed Wednesday’s decision, calling it a “victory” for Texans and “for the rule of law.”

    “It is the foremost responsibility of the Department of Justice to defend the Constitution,” he said. “We will continue to protect constitutional rights against all who would seek to undermine them.”

    Abortion rights advocates also praised the ruling. “The relief granted by the court today is overdue, and we are grateful that the Department of Justice moved quickly to seek it,” said Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood. “While this fight is far from over, we are hopeful that the court’s order blocking S.B. 8 will allow Texas abortion providers to resume services as soon as possible.”

    However, the ban may soon go back into effect, as Texas officials swiftly filed an appeal to the decision. They are planning to seek an emergency stay from the conservative 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has previously upheld the ban.

    Since the law took effect in September, abortion clinics have experienced a massive chilling effect on their services. “Exactly what we feared would happen has come to pass,” said Melaney Linton, president of Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, in a court filing.

    In his decision, Pitman pointed out that the abortion ban is not only causing fear and uncertainty in Texas — it’s also overburdening abortion clinics in other states.

    “Texas residents forced to leave the state must also contend with the abortion restrictions and backlogs in other states,” the judge wrote. “The Court finds credible the evidence showing that the inundation of Texas patients overburdens abortion services in other states, many of which are already stretched to the breaking.”

    Pitman then shared the story of an abortion provider in Oklahoma. Before S. B. 8, patients from Texas represented only about a quarter of her patient load. Now, Texans represent about two-thirds of her overall patients, and she has had to delay abortions because of increased demand.

    Oklahoma Planned Parenthood facilities have described the surge of patients from Texas as “unprecedented,” and they fear that delayed abortions will end up driving people away from having the procedure altogether.

    Reproductive rights advocates fear that more abortion restrictions may be on the horizon. In December, the Supreme Court is set to hear arguments by the state of Mississippi in a case that seeks to challenge Roe v. Wade. If the Court ruling sides with the state, abortion rights may be endangered in states ruled by conservative lawmakers.

    Last month, in response to the Texas law, House Democrats passed a bill that would guarantee abortion rights across the country. But the bill faces long odds of passing in a Senate deadlocked by the filibuster.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Haitian and Central American migrants protest

    “Texas is playing by its own rules on immigration and deputizing police from as far away as Iowa to participate in Abbott’s state-level war on migrants. The implications here are just horrifying,” says Kelly Hayes. In this episode of “Movement Memos,” Kelly examines recent events in Del Rio, Texas, where Black asylum seekers were brutalized and faced mass deportations, and also highlights Operation Lone Star, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s unconstitutional, state-level war on migrants. Kelly also talks with Breanne Palmer, with the UndocuBlack Network, and Kevin Herrera, with Just Futures Law, about the fight to defend refugees and asylum seekers.

    TRANSCRIPT

    Note: This a rush transcript and has been lightly edited for clarity. Copy may not be in its final form.

    Kelly Hayes: Welcome to “Movement Memos,” a Truthout podcast about things you should know if you want to change the world. I’m your host, writer and organizer, Kelly Hayes. On this show, we talk a lot about building the relationships and analysis we need to create movements that can win. Today, we are talking about immigration and deportations — a subject that many liberals and progressives were passionate about during the Trump administration, and a topic that a lot of people are noticeably avoiding these days. We are going to discuss what happened in Del Rio, Texas, where the U.S. government recently cleared an encampment of 15,000 largely Haitian refugees, and deported thousands of people within days, after images of Border Patrol violence went viral. We’re also going to talk about Governor Greg Abbott’s private, unconstitutional war on migrants: Operation Lone Star. That’s way too much for me to break down on my own, so we’ll be hearing from Breanne Palmer, from UndocuBlack Network, and attorney Kevin Herrera, who works with Just Futures Law, an immigration law project rooted in movement lawyering. We’ll also be talking about why a lot of people are less engaged with immigration justice under Biden, beyond the obvious red team, blue team divides, and why that needs to change.

    Under Trump, we saw unmitigated outrage from Democrats and liberals about family separations, children in concentration camps, and Trump’s vile attitude toward migrants. The idea that refugees should be welcomed was a mainstream liberal idea, echoed by Vice President Kamala Harris, during her presidential campaign, when she tweeted in 2017, “Say it loud, say it clear, everyone is welcome here.” But following the ouster of Donald Trump, things changed.

    Many self-described migrant justice advocates have tolerated or ignored the role of Democrats in the progression of border violence in the United States. This is a cyclical problem, and the cycle has to be broken. Because people’s lives and dignity are at stake. And I believe our humanity and our collective survival are at stake as well. Back in 1996, when I was still in high school, Bill Clinton signed the rarely discussed Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, only two years after signing his now infamous crime bill. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act closed avenues to documentation, and radically expanded the criteria for deportation. The mass deportation machine that has since been exploited by both Republican and Democratic administrations was, in many ways, enabled by this legislation.

    When it comes to deportations, repelling migrants and refugees, and other massive investments in securitization, Republicans and Democrats may use different rhetoric, but their underlying objectives are similar, because securitization is the bipartisan response to virtually every disruption of the status quo. When it comes to intra-communal violence, the state’s solution is never to address the roots of harm and violence, but to strengthen its ability to surveil, contain and enact violence upon the populace. In the case of migration, solutions that involve debt forgiveness, ending austerity or harmful trade agreements, or addressing climate change, or actually welcoming refugees in the manner that candidate Harris described, are never on the table. When either party has power, it addresses migration by ramping up deportations and creating deadly or hopeless conditions that are meant to deter migrants from attempting to come to the United States.

    Harsha Walia describes these dynamics in her book Border & Rule: Global Migration, Capitalism, and the Rise of Racist Nationalism, and I want to share a passage that I think illustrates how all of this has progressed. Walia wrote:

    Faced with multiple crises beginning in the 1960s, including a deep recession, military defeat in Vietnam, and an enormous wave of social protests and strikes, the U.S. ruling class set out to restore U.S. capitalism and empire. They did so by adopting and exporting neoliberalism, rolling back social movement gains by normalizing carceral governance, and reimposing imperial supremacy beginning with genocidal wars in Central America and culminating in the global war on terror. Consequently, a growing number of people were displaced and then contained by the U.S. through its expanding border imperialist regimes across maritime space with Haiti and at the land border with Mexico. U.S. immigration policies were not only parallel to but a fulcrum between domestic and global warfare. Repressive border policies served as a thread braiding together social warfare, mass destabilization and displacement, capitalist extraction, and militarized carceral control, both at home and abroad.

    Securitization is a bipartisan imperative, and it appears, our country’s only real response to climate change, and the reality that hundreds of millions of people will be displaced in the coming years. The bipartisan plan in the United States is to slam the door and let those people die, rather than addressing the root causes of migration or offering any form of safe harbor, and we have to reconcile that in order to have any meaningful conversations about immigration policy. So, I wanted to start there.

    As many of you know, on September 20, videos emerged of Border Patrol agents on horseback, whipping migrants with split reins, while chasing and nearly trampling the asylum seekers. On September 22, the UndocuBlack Network, Haitian Bridge Alliance, United We Dream, the Movement for Black Lives, and 236 cosigning organizations sent an open letter to President Biden, Vice President Harris, Majority Leader Schumer, and Speaker Pelosi demanding an end to the use of Title 42, a public health measure that was first weaponized by Donald Trump to facilitate mass deportations. The letter also called for drastic budget cuts to the Department of Homeland Security, among other demands. Highlighting the role of colonial powers, like the United States, in creating Haiti’s current predicament, the coalition wrote:

    Immigration is a Black issue. For decades, the world has witnessed unstable environmental and political conditions in Haiti act as consistent roadblocks to peace and liberation for the island nation and its people. We understand these conditions are the direct result of centuries of financial and political punishment from global colonial powers, as revenge for Haiti’s unapologetic seizing of its own freedom as the world’s first Black-led republic.

    While the Biden administration has been apologetic about the spectacle of brutality, the administration has also been using Title 42 to deport thousands of Haitian refugees without allowing them to apply for asylum. According to the UndocuBlack Network, more than 6,000 Haitian migrants have been expelled back to Haiti under Title 42 without access to asylum protection, as required under U.S. and international law, since September 19. Many of the deportees left Haiti in 2010 after an earthquake that killed 200,000 people. They have now been returned to a country they haven’t seen in years, in the aftermath of another catastrophic earthquake and a presidential assassination — a country with a government on the brink of collapse, where street violence is rampant. I recently spoke with Breanne Palmer from the UndocuBlack Network, and she had a few thoughts she wanted to share with you all about Title 42.

    Breanne Palmer: So my name is Breanne Palmer. I’m the interim policy and advocacy director at the UndocuBlack Network. The UndocuBlack Network is a multi-generational network of currently and formerly undocumented black people. We do policy work and advocacy work with the administration, with members of Congress, so we also have a very robust narrative and media team that seeks to complicate narratives about immigration and particularly about Black immigrants. And we also strive to provide community care and wellness resources for our members, so they’re not just living, but thriving and living very full, wonderful lives outside of the struggle for just immigration. And so, that’s a bit about me and about my organization.

    The past few weeks, the photographs and videos that have been going viral of horseback CBP officers, brutalizing Haitian immigrants, and other Black immigrants who are being misclassified as Haitians, much of that is the fault of the Title 42 policy that is currently in place in the U.S.. And so Title 42 is … before the pandemic was a very kind of obscure authorization in which the CDC and or the Department of Health and Human Services could issue an order that authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to close ports of entry and deny access to the U.S. for people seeking asylum, people coming on foot.

    Title 42 has been promulgated and sort of publicized as a public health measure, that we simply must close our borders to immigrants because they pose a significant threat to the public health during the pandemic. Over the past, it’s been more than a year, because the Title 42 order went into effect last March, 2020. And in the more than a year that this order has been in effect, there’s been no proof that keeping the “borders closed” has improved the United States response to COVID-19. The response has been abysmal internally. And so not only are we allowing the virus to run free within the country, but then we are using that same excuse to deny asylum seekers their domestic and international right to apply for asylum. The U.S. is a party to a number of treaties, a number of international obligations to not return people to the countries they fled from where they fear persecution, harm, even death. And so really, we are abandoning our obligations to refugees and asylum seekers under a false pretense, and it’s outrageous. And that Title 42 function, that is why we are seeing such violence and such harm at the border, even more than normally happens, right? There’s always violence at any border, but in particular, we’ve closed our doors and we’ve abandoned people to dangerous conditions in border towns and in border communities where they’re not always welcomed by local folks, especially Black immigrants who are very visible and very vulnerable to anti-Black discrimination, violence, harm. It’s just a dire situation that is a situation of our own making.

    KH: Many people have noted that the images of Haitian and other Black refugees being whipped by Border Patrol agents are reminiscent of slavery. It’s important for people who may find that exceptional to understand that those images were reminiscent of slavery because Border Patrol and slavery are part of the same lineage of violence. The Texas Rangers, who helped establish the Border Patrol in 1924, were created to aid in the murderous displacement of Indigenous people and Mexican land owners, and to enforce the property rights of slave owners, by hunting down enslaved people who had escaped. Since then, Border Patrol has operated with near impunity. Many early members of Border Patrol were transplants from the Texas Rangers. Some transferred in from border town police departments. Many were members of the KKK.

    President Biden has denounced the images of Border Patrol agents on horseback, nearly running down refugees, saying, “I promise you those people will pay.” Biden told reporters, “They will be investigated. There will be consequences.” But according to immigration rights activist and former senior Border Patrol agent Jenn Budd, what was captured in those photos was status quo conduct for Border Patrol agents. As Budd stated on her website, “Yes, the manner in which those horse patrol agents were patrolling is normal behavior. Yes, agents are trained this way.” Budd also wrote that:

    Border Patrol often use terms usually designated for animals for migrants because they do not see migrants as humans. Agents are trained in the academy and in the field that most asylum seekers and refugees are liars, criminals and are trying to invade our country. They believe that most are “subhuman” and make statements like you heard the horse patrol agent make in the video that they are coming from “shit countries.”

    In Border & Rule, Harsha Walia wrote about the violent terminology deployed by Border Patrol, such as calling border crossers “tonks” — a word that refers to the sound an agent’s flashlight supposedly makes when it strikes a migrant on the head.

    We do not have time today to do justice to all of the ways anti-Blackness, and the overall control of Black people’s movements, under capitalism, through bordering and criminalization, have informed the evolution of border violence — and by that I mean, the inherently violent work of border enforcement — but I do want to uplift what Breanne Palmer had to say about the plight of Black migrants under this system.

    BP: At every stage of the immigration process, in every type of interaction with the Department of Homeland Security, ICE, CBP, Black immigrants are subjected to some of the worst types of mistreatment. So we saw one horrific, grotesque example of that with the use of the mounted CBP officers and their reigns, whips, whatever we want to call them. The devices used to brutalize patient migrants. That was just one example of the kind of mistreatment and denial of just humanity that Black immigrants face.

    At UndocuBlack, we were also involved in advocacy for pregnant people, pregnant Black African people, and families that have been detained throughout the pandemic at such certain points in time. They’ve been denied proper nutrition for themselves and for their children. If they have infants, they’ve been denied access to quality medical care for pregnant people.

    You know, these are just some of the kind of atrocities that we’ve seen. I think many people may be aware of the forced sterilization and experimentation on Cameroonian women at the Irwin Detention Facility. So every kind of violent mistreatment, every kind of violation of human rights and human dignity, those things are visited upon Black immigrants, whether they are in detention, whether they are approaching the border to apply for asylum, whether they are being forced onto deportation flights, we see kind of a disparate, extreme mistreatment of Black immigrants that reflects the mistreatment of Black Americans within the country. These things are interconnected because the root issue is anti-Blackness and the United States was built on anti-Indigenous violence and it’s built on anti-Black violence. And so these are all sort of the fruits of that central tree of white supremacy and anti-Blackness.

    And so if you have a law enforcement agency that is based on apprehending and processing immigrants for deportation, it’s not surprising that they are not very good at asking the right questions of asylum seekers, to make sure that they are provided with their proper opportunity to express their desire to apply for asylum. It’s not surprising that the policies that should prevent the detention of pregnant people are suddenly ignored when the detention population becomes more Caribbean, more African, just more Black in general. So the things we are observing in the immigration system that are anti-Black, they’re not new. And the photos that we saw of the Haitian migrants at the border. That is one example of many of the horrible things that Black immigrants go through.

    KH: Next up, I really want to talk about Operation Lone Star, in Texas. Last week, I saw immigration reporter Tina Vasquez tweet, “I remain deeply confused why Operation Lone Star isn’t bigger news. It completely dismisses due process, and it intersects with Title 42 and the recent treatment of Haitian migrants in Texas.” I read that tweet, and realized that, one, if Tina Vasquez says we need to be talking about this, then we should be, and two, that I didn’t know nearly enough about Operation Lone Star. So I hit up Kevin Herrera, who is an attorney with Just Futures Law — a transformative law project that follows the leadership of grassroots organizers and provides legal support for immigration rights organizations — and I asked him if he could break the situation down for us. Here’s what he had to say.

    Kevin Herrera: So Operation Lone Star appears to be Governor Abbott’s, Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas, his effort to engage in state-level Trumpism whereby the real problems of the state of Texas are pushed aside. And instead, the state demonizes a population of people who are marginalized, specifically the migrants who have been crossing the United States, Texas border for centuries. And so Operation Lone Star is more or less a manufactured crisis that the state of Texas has designed in order to score political points and create political theater, but also enacts immeasurable cruelty on migrants who choose to cross the United States-Mexico border for whatever purposes they choose to and in ways that, again, are time honored and have been occurring for, again, centuries.

    So the legal foundations of Operation Lone Star are essentially, a lot of political grandstanding whereby the governor of Texas claimed that there is a large number of migrants who are crossing into the United States and this is a crisis for the state of Texas, where ranchers and people who own private property believe that their property is being crossed. And in an effort to escalate the damages that are alleged about the ways that migrants cross into the United States, people are saying that they have property damage and there’s, of course, this demonization and xenophobic rhetoric of, migrants are drug traffickers and they’re human smugglers, and people are afraid to leave their houses because of five or six single men who may be seeking work in Texas crossing a property on foot.

    So essentially, the governor shouted a lot about this, did a lot of media about it, and then moved on to creating legal foundations for doing something about it. In spite of the fact that, under the federal constitution, only the United States federal government can enforce immigration law, Governor Abbott first issued a declaration suspending a lot of basic criminal laws in Texas, as they pertain to migrants. You might have seen an earlier proclamation about migrant smuggling, whereby a person who was caught giving a ride, for example, to an undocumented person can face criminal penalty and that’s being challenged in court.

    But Operation Lone Star itself really hit a ramp up when the governor declared a state of emergency and under this state of emergency, ordered a few things. I think the notable ones are a redirection of state resources to the border. So you’re seeing Texas highway patrol officers being deployed to the border, as well as Texas National Guard people being deployed to the border. Other states that wanted to get in on the political theater and have conservative leadership, I believe North and South Dakota were involved, Iowa, Arizona also sent their National Guards people to the border. And so there’s this resource allocation.

    In addition to that, the governor, with this state of emergency, declared emergency funding be available for enforcement of the program. And then the ways that it’s really impacting the criminal legal system is this emergency declaration stated grounds for essentially, enhancing a very basic misdemeanor, just criminal trespass to a more heavily punishable offense and an offense that is no longer subject to the same sort of protections that you might anticipate a basic misdemeanor to be subject to.

    So the governor set aside, for example, Dolph Briscoe Unit, which is a state Texas prison, usually used to house individuals who are alleged to have committed higher level crimes. That’s now a unit that is just designated for immigrants. All of whom, to my knowledge, have only been alleged to have committed misdemeanor trespass, which initially is a 15-day jail sentence or a fine. Even elevated under the emergency declaration, it’s a 30-day jail sentence or a fine, but people have been transported essentially from border counties where they’re picked up by highway patrol or essentially National Guard forces to Dolph Briscoe Unit, which is like three… I want to say, it’s more than a hundred miles away from the place of arrest. And then just held there, awaiting some sort of criminal process based on allegations that they were caught on private land.

    So our organization was contacted by Grassroots Leadership, which is doing a tremendous job via their organizers of trying to figure out exactly what legal processes have been suspended. We’ve seen more than a thousand people be arrested for criminal trespass, and again, just disappeared into a state prison facility that is designated specifically for migrants and criminal defense attorneys have told us that their clients are being told, “You can anticipate being here for a year,” without really being told why. We’re also being told that individuals are signing untranslated documents essentially waiving the right to an attorney because they’re being instructed to do so. And they don’t speak English. So Grassroots Leadership essentially asked for Just Futures Law’s assistance in trying to figure out a way, if there was a possibility to challenge these detentions, where folks are just languishing in jail for months without having a criminal trial or without an attorney.

    So we were connected with some potential clients. We formed a little legal team that involved a person, Kathryn Dyer, who’s at University of Texas law working on her own time, as well as Angelica Cogliano and Addy Miro, both of whom are private attorneys in Austin. And we just essentially started digging into what was possible to help individuals at least get a day in court, given that they’ve just been stuck in jail for several months. So two clients that were connected to us via their families, and their families had done a tremendous job advocating for them and just making sure that organizers are responsive to their needs and aware of their situations, but Ivan Ruano Nava and David Vega Muñoz both of whom were arrested by Texas DPS [Department of Public Safety] officers in July.

    Essentially, we asked them what had gone on, and a lot of the situation reflected where I just described earlier, which is they were told there were no attorneys available, told to sign forms waiving their rights to attorneys, never told what they were charged with outside of a mass magistration, where they essentially just walked in, had a judge speak really quickly at them about what they were facing. To our understanding, the officer that arrested them was their interpreter. And so they told us that they couldn’t really understand what he had to say about what was happening to them. And then they were sent to Dolph Briscoe, again, a hundred miles away from Kinney County where they were arrested and never told anything else about their criminal charges.

    So our role and our job, the best that we could come up with, was filing an application for habeas corpus in a district court. That hearing, which was really difficult to get, finally occurred on Tuesday, September 28th. And we alleged, with regard to why they were being held, several claims. One of which was selective prosecution. The state of Texas has said that it is only prosecuting men and appears to only be prosecuting brown-skinned people who are from Central America and Mexico. And so our argument is that misdemeanor trespass is only being alleged against people with those characteristics. Also preemption, just the notion that Texas can’t lawfully enforce immigration law. And this is a pretextual effort to do so. And then a few other basic constitutional protections that have just been completely suspended by Operation Lone Star. One of which is you have a right to be charged with a certain offense within a certain amount of time that you’re spending in jail, so under the misdemeanor trespass statute, you have to be charged within 15 days of arrest. They had been held for 45 days without being charged with any crime formally.

    We also, I should say, we also challenged the probable cause for their arrest because it would appear that they were arrested on public land. And so the sense that I get is that if a Texas highway patrol person encounters a person who appears to be an immigrant, based on physiological characteristics, that person gets arrested for misdemeanor trespass. And so the state ought to prove that there’s a reason for their arrest. But during that hearing, essentially, we followed on another hearing that happened that morning from Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid, which is representing lots of people based on appointments, where they secured personal bonds for roughly 150 to 200 people. Which just means a payable amount so that they could be free prior to their day in court, on criminal charges, rather than having to wait however many months it’s going to take the Texas courts to catch up with the mass arrests and the mass magistrations that have happened.

    But in our case, we weren’t satisfied with a personal bond. We didn’t think there were underlying criminal grounds for these individuals to be held in the first place. But yeah, so we just would not accept a personal bond and an order that these individuals come back to face their day in court on misdemeanor charges because we didn’t think the misdemeanor charges had any merit anyway. So we went on and talked to the court about the constitutional issues and my colleague Angelica Cogliano, once we got to the probable cause portion, pressed the state on whether they had any evidence for why these individuals were arrested and whether they could meet their burden of showing there was probable cause for the arrest. At that point, opposing counsel for the state essentially admitted that they couldn’t prove it up. And because opposing counsel, the counsel for the state of Texas, couldn’t prove probable cause, she offered to drop the charges, which we accepted. So coming out of that day, our clients didn’t have any more criminal charges against them, but that’s really only the beginning of the story for their detention.

    KH: So Texas is playing by its own rules on immigration and deputizing police from as far away as Iowa to participate in Abbott’s state-level war on migrants. The implications here are just horrifying, particularly when put it in the larger political context of what marginalized people in Texas are experiencing: people being encouraged to surveil the reproductive choices of their neighbors, so they can sue them if they get an abortion, the passage of a sweeping voter suppression bill — a law that includes measures that could fuel vigilantism. What’s happening in Texas could be the shape of things to come, and fierce battles are clearly called for. Democrats in Congress have so far proven incapable of taking action on voting rights, and the right-wing Supreme Court has allowed the state’s reproductive surveillance law to stand, but immigration enforcement falls under the purview of the federal government, and the Biden administration has an obligation to put a stop to Abbott’s state-level war on migrants. So why isn’t Biden putting a stop to this? Kevin had a few thoughts on that as well.

    Kevin Herrera: I think that the Biden administration wants to have it a couple of ways. They want to say, “We’re humane and kind and understand the value of the lives of migrants. And for this reason we won’t use terms like illegal aliens in our press releases and our legal filings.” But on the other hand, they think that it’s a politically expedient tool to say, “We’re hard on border crossers. We don’t want more people coming.” You’ve heard Kamala Harris say, “This isn’t the right time.” And Alejandro Mayorkas, the head of DHS, say, “If you come here, you will be sent back.” And so, I think the actions are speaking louder than words, but the ways that they approached the Haitian migrants in Del Rio suggests an intolerable level of cruelty on the part of the administration.

    And this ties back to our situation with Operation Lone Star in so far as the Biden administration won’t take a stand to oppose Texas’s total suspension of the constitutional rights of migrants, and jailing without probable cause literally thousands of people thus far. And so our issue following what I felt to be a complete victory in the criminal legal system on behalf of two men where I thought, “Ooh great, Ivan and David are going to be able to walk out and go where they need to go wherever that is,” just was the tip of the iceberg, because Texas continues to hold these men based on the belief that the federal government is going to pick them up and deport them pursuant to some policy, whether that’s Title 42 or just the typical routine deportation orders of a recent arrival in the United States. So it seems as though the federal government is working hand in hand with the state of Texas where laws are being suspended whole cloth, and that’s really a problem.

    I think that there has to be a willingness and a bravery on the part of the federal government to say, no. Texas’ suspension of constitutional rights and willingness to just say it’s going to do what the federal government won’t with regard to immigration law. You can’t acquiesce to that and still say that you have any sort of humanitarian prerogative when it comes to immigration. So I think just the ways that the federal government has been really willing to cooperate with Texas on both the issue of Haitian folks in Del Rio and on the Operation Lone Star question speaks to a larger pattern of just willingness on the part of the government to look the other way when it comes to real cruelty, whether that’s enacted by federal agents or by state personnel.

    KH: So now that we’ve learned a few things about what’s going on, right now, in the realm of immigration, I want to circle back to the problem of people being inattentive to this issue. There’s a stereotype about liberals having gone back to brunch once Biden was elected, and I think there are plenty of cases where that stereotype holds up. Some people were being theatrical about immigration under Trump because migrant children and their families made useful political props, and now that they don’t feel personally threatened by the president, a lot of people are willing to tune out whatever happens to asylum seekers. But I don’t think everyone who has gotten quiet about immigration under Biden was being disingenuous under Trump. I think some people meant what they were saying, at the time, because they felt a sense of proximity to the crisis that they no longer feel — even though their liberation is, in fact, tied up in the liberation of those migrants. I think we saw something similar in the early days of the pandemic, when an unprecedented number of white people joined Black people and people of color in the streets, to demand justice for George Floyd. It was a moment of uncertainty and crisis, when a lot of white people were contemplating their own disposability under capitalism for the first time. So when the system violently disposed of George Floyd, something resonated. Similarly, when it comes to immigration, white liberals witnessed child separations, and children being put in concentration camps, and they saw fewer degrees of separation between themselves and that violence, because while they were not going to experience the same violence, they knew they were not safe from the Trump administration, and that the “normal” they had known was not safe from Trump. We all lose our sense of proximity to other people all the time. This society was engineered to cause that disorientation. Individualism sets us up to fail each other. And right now, a lot of people are failing people they might have marched or wept for a couple of years ago. We need to reckon with that.

    I’ve been thinking a lot about how people used to point to the horrific things Trump was doing and say, “This is not normal.” The point wasn’t that his actions were unjust, because injustice is normal. It was that there was something about his injustice that was menacing to the status quo — a status quo that allows some people to feel socially insulated from the violence of this world. The political weather was harsh under Trump, and previously sheltered people could feel it, because their insulation was being ripped away, and it hurt.

    Then, Trump was gone, and suddenly, people were willing to set the bar at normalcy, which has worked out pretty terribly for the people who normally got the shaft, and it will work out for fewer and fewer of us over time. We know we are capable of more than this, in terms of care and solidarity. We saw a flash of that potential, in the early days of the pandemic, when mutual aid efforts popped up across the country. Disasters can act as social defibrillations that re-enliven our human connectivity, which can lead to remarkable acts of solidarity. When we feel that connection, and that urge to act on one another’s behalf, we are capable of tremendous mobilization. But when a crisis exists within the realm of normalcy, on any given day, under capitalism, and our disabled neighbors have trouble picking up their prescriptions, or a struggling family can’t afford groceries, those crises are individualized, and that charge of connectivity just doesn’t light up the grid. That same principle applies to groups of people, like migrants and other criminalized people, who are routinely harmed or ground down by the system, even under a Democrat. It is the tyranny of normalcy that allows our government to perpetrate atrocities, while avoiding the potential wrath of our solidarity. Because when an atrocity is normalized, we learn to live with it, and we can be relied upon to do so.

    People in the United States have been conditioned to exonerate their country of its violence, whenever possible, and when they can’t, they have been conditioned to exonerate themselves by way of merely voicing disapproval. This is some hard core conditioning. And it’s conditioning that must be undone. Our obligation to each other is no different under Biden than it was under Trump. Our human ties to the people being abused along the border are as real today as they were when asylum seekers were being terrorized, abused and denied entry under the Trump administration. And while some people may now see the fates of migrants as being less entwined with their own, those people couldn’t be more wrong.

    We are living through an era of intensifying catastrophe. The continued normalization of disposing of people who have nowhere to go, and who have no place in the existing order of economic relations, threatens us all. Just as we should all expect that we might become climate refugees at some point, we should all recognize that our disposal will probably be on the table at some point. Maybe because we have nowhere to go. Maybe because there are no jobs. Maybe because we can’t afford health care. What culture will we have built in opposition to our own disposal, when those moments come? When we decide to let normalcy to envelop more atrocity, our own lives are at stake too. Our lives shouldn’t have to be at stake for us to give a damn, but they are, because normal’s teeth keep getting sharper and capitalism and criminalization keep getting hungrier.

    Moments of collapse will unfold unpredictably in the coming decades. We’re not talking about the whole world falling down at once, but for some people it already has, and it will continue to do so. We need to decide what values we are building upon, and what politics we are proliferating, as people are shuffled through the aftermaths to come, and we have to decide now, because the dynamics that will determine how we all experience this era are being established now.

    So if you’re thinking, “Okay, I won’t look away. What can I do?” UndocuBlack Network does have some asks and demands that you can engage with and share, and I hope that you do.

    BP: The UndocuBlack Network has a petition that we’ve signed with United We Dream, with the Haitian Bridge Alliance, and with the Movement for Black Lives that invites individual people, everyday folks to join in our outrage and join in our efforts to hold the Biden Administration accountable. We’re calling for, number one, an end to the Title 42 policy. It is long past any form of efficacy or candor in what it’s doing. It’s an excuse to deny asylum seekers, and it’s an excuse to keep America closed to the people that it owes humane treatment to. And so we ask you to join our call to end Title 42.

    We are demanding the protection and return of the Haitian and other Black migrants who were expelled from Del Rio before any kind of investigation could begin on what happened and what we saw in those photos and videos. So we’re demanding a right of return for those people. We’re demanding humanitarian parole for Haitians and other black immigrants and other migrants who were at Del Rio at the time of that violence. They deserve to enter the country and live in peace, at least pending an investigation by DHS or by other agencies into what’s been happening.

    And in general, we’ve called for this for quite a number of years, but we are renewing our call for divestment from DHS, divestment from ICE, divestment from CBP. We cannot keep pouring billions of dollars into agencies that are committed to harming immigrants and harming our Black immigrant community members. And we’re looking for a true abolitionist view of a new investment in humane holistic immigration processes, immigration care, providing resources for free from the federal government and not relying on nonprofits and organizations like ours to fill in the gap that should be filled in by the incredibly well resourced, incredibly creative federal government. And so folks can join our petition. You can follow the UndocuBlack Network at UndocuBlack on all the platforms to keep up with our work.

    And we also encourage people to call your members of Congress and express your desire to see Congress pressure the Biden administration to reverse Title 42. If that looks like Congress denying funding to ICE until that’s done, then perhaps that’s what that looks like. And so, we encourage you to get creative with your ideas and the ways that we can really put pressure on the Biden administration to stop failing to fulfill their promises and stop betraying the communities and the family members of the folks who delivered him the White House. So many new Americans voted for the first time last November. And we’re seeing people who come from the places they came from being brutalized. And that is unacceptable.

    KH: If you want to connect with some of that work, or to support Just Futures Law or their grassroots partners, we will have links in the show notes, at the end of this episode’s transcript on our website. I hope that everyone will check out those options, and that we all engage in whatever ways our capacity might allow. I know these are difficult times, and that we are all overwhelmed, but we are going to continue to build power together. By living outside our own secluded stories, we can reject individualism, learn the stories that our oppressors do not want repeated, and shout them out to others. There are many levels of participation, in all of our struggles, but our work begins by refusing to disengage, by learning, and by acting when and where we can. Together, we can build a life-giving culture in opposition to colonialism, borders and other forms of violence. But to do that, we have to refuse to leave each other behind.

    If you’re listening to this show, or reading the transcript, I just want to let you know how much I appreciate your concern and your resolve in tackling the issues we discuss. I also wanted to give our regular listeners a heads up that, as of next week, episodes of “Movement Memos” will be released on Thursdays, instead of Wednesdays, so be on the lookout for that. I also want to thank our listeners for joining us today, and remember, our best defense against cynicism is to do good, and to remember that the good we do matters. Until next time, I’ll see you in the streets.

    Music by Son Monarcas, Loving Caliber, and Ever So Blue

    Show Notes

    • You can learn more about the UndocuBlack Network’s ongoing work by visiting their website, or by following them on social media. Twitter and Instagram: @UndocuBlack

    • You can check out UBN’s open letter to the Biden administration here.

    • You can sign the petition in support of those demands here.

    • You can check out UBN’s formal letter of complaint about DHS operations and the conduct of DHS’s officers and agents in and around Del Rio, Texas, here.

    • You can also check out the work of the Haitian Bridge Alliance, a group of dedicated Haitians and Haitian-Americans committed to assist, empower and amplify the voices of Haitian and other Black immigrants. Twitter and Instagram: @HaitianBridge

    • You can learn more about Just Futures Law and transformative movement lawyering here.

    • Grassroots Leadership works for a more just society where prison profiteering, mass incarceration, deportation, and criminalization are things of the past. You can learn more about their work here.

    Further reading:

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Protesters rally for abortion justice on the south lawn of the Texas State Capitol in Austin on October 2 during Women's March ATX.

    Austin, Texas—Hundreds protested Texas’s new six-week abortion ban, rallying on the south lawn of the State Capitol Saturday as part of nationwide demonstrations for abortion justice. Organized by the Women’s March and more than 90 partnering organizations, including the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice, Planned Parenthood and SisterSong, the actions spread across 610 cities in all 50 states and Washington, D.C.

    Texas leaders in the fight for reproductive rights anchored marches in Austin and in Brownsville in South Texas, joining hundreds of thousands of marchers across the country and in the nation’s capital in D.C., to pressure the U.S. Senate to urgently pass House-approved legislation that would ensure the right to abortion under federal law, and separately, to protect the right to vote, abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court.

    In Austin, Democratic state lawmakers linked their fight against voter suppression to the fight against the state’s Senate Bill 8 (SB 8). The new law bans abortion after six weeks by empowering private individuals to file civil lawsuits seeking up to $10,000 against abortion providers and anyone who “aids and abets” in the procedure — an enforcement mechanism reproductive rights advocates have criticized as a form of legalized bounty hunting.

    State representatives including Jasmine Crockett, Donna Howard and others told the crowd in Austin about their work testifying in D.C. before the Senate Judiciary Committee about SB 8 last week. They connected state lawmakers’ struggle against the state’s voter suppression bill, in which Texas Democrats fled the state for D.C. in order to break a legislative quorum in July, to the fight against SB 8.

    State Sen. Jasmine Crockett speaks to protesters on the south lawn of the Texas State Capitol on October 2 during Women's March ATX.
    State Rep. Jasmine Crockett speaks to protesters at the Texas State Capitol in Austin, Texas, on October 2, 2021, during Women’s March ATX.

    “We’re in the middle of redistricting right now. You know what [the Texas GOP] want to do? They want to further limit your voice,” State Rep. Jasmine Crockett told hundreds of protesters Saturday at the State Capitol. “The Texas Democrats went to D.C. because … we wanted to make sure that everyone in this state had equal access to the ballot box. They don’t want you to have access to the ballot box. They don’t want to make sure that you’re represented because they know that if you’re represented, stupid laws like [SB 8] would never be on the books.”

    Other lawmakers who spoke at the rally Saturday included U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett and Travis County Commissioners Brigid Shea and Ann Howard, as well as members of Austin City Council. Former State Sen. Wendy Davis and former Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards, the daughter of former Texas Gov. Ann Richards, also spoke at the event.

    State troopers with the Texas Department of Public Safety protect a small anti-abortion counterprotest on the south lawn of the Texas State Capitol in Austin on October 2, 2021, during Women's March ATX.
    State troopers with the Texas Department of Public Safety protect a small anti-abortion counterprotest at the Texas State Capitol in Austin, Texas, on October 2, 2021, during Women’s March ATX.

    In Washington, D.C., thousands of marchers gathered at Freedom Plaza near the White House and marched to the Supreme Court, just two days before the start of the Court’s new term, which is set to decide the future of abortion rights in the U.S. as the Donald Trump-appointed conservative majority takes up a Mississippi challenge to the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade in December.

    Speakers at the D.C. event included swimmer Schuyler Bailar, activist Monica Simpson, President of Physicians for Reproductive Health Jamila Perritt and Planned Parenthood CEO Alexis McGill Johnson. Reproductive rights leaders from Texas also spoke out during the rally.

    “We’re going to keep giving [the fight] to Texas,” Marsha Jones of the Afiya Center for Black women’s health care in Dallas, pledged to the Washington crowd. “You can no longer tell us what to do with our bodies!”

    On Friday, the Biden administration urged a federal judge to block SB 8. District Judge Robert Pitman heard arguments from Justice Department lawyers and the Texas attorney general’s office for nearly three hours on Friday but did not say when he would rule. The case is just one of a series of cases, including the Mississippi case, that presents the Supreme Court with the opportunity to uphold or overrule Roe.

    A separate challenge to SB 8 is back on the high court’s docket after a broad coalition of Texas abortion providers led by Whole Woman’s Health again asked the court to intervene. In an attempt to expedite the case, plaintiffs asked the court to hear the defendants’ motions to dismiss, which were denied by the district court and then appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, where they remain pending.

    Additionally, a Texas state court has blocked lawsuits against Planned Parenthood clinics, temporarily protecting the providers from enforcement of SB 8. So far, one Texas abortion provider, Dr. Alan Braid, who claims to have provided an abortion after six weeks, has been sued by two people from outside the state in a deliberate attempt to test the new law in Texas courts.

    The weekend’s demonstrations also come on the heels of powerful personal testimony by congresswomen, including progressive Representatives Cori Bush, Pramila Jayapal and Barbara Lee, at a Thursday House Oversight Committee hearing on protecting abortion access. The women told emotional stories of their own experiences obtaining abortion after rape, contraceptive failure and during the ‘60s before Roe.

    “When I found out that I was pregnant it was very difficult because I still didn’t understand what was happening,” Bush told members of Congress of her pregnancy as a result of rape at just 17. “I just knew I wasn’t ready for a child.”

    A protester wears a dress fashioned out of coat hangers on the south lawn of the Texas State Capitol in Austin, Texas, on October 2, 2021 during Women's March ATX.
    A protester wears a dress fashioned out of coat hangers at the Texas State Capitol in Austin, Texas, on October 2, 2021, during Women’s March ATX.

    Women’s March Executive Director Rachel O’Leary Carmona told Truthout in advance of Saturday’s events that fewer people overall traveled from across the country to be in D.C. than those who chose to stay and organize at home, in contrast to the Women’s March’s largest single-day protest after President Trump’s inauguration in 2017. Activists’ emphasis on organizing locally this year “is actually what we need in order to get the kind of momentum and infrastructure built across the country and for the long haul,” Carmona says.

    Carmona, who recently relocated to Texas, echoed lawmakers and reproductive rights activists in the state in terms of centering the connection between issues of democracy, voting rights and reproductive justice. “So much of what we need to understand about Texas and also the South is the ways in which it has been gerrymandered and, in some ways, occupied by extremist, right-wing actors who are suppressing the will of the people either through refusing to let folks express that or through trying to suppress it once it has been expressed,” she told Truthout.

    The weekend’s marches and rallies build pressure on Congress to pass both the Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA) and the Equal Access to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance (EACH) Act. House Democrats passed the WHPA on September 24 in an effort to combat Texas’s SB 8 and in response to mounting fears that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe. WHPA faces an uphill battle in the evenly split Senate, due to center-right Democrats’ refusal to abolish the filibuster — something Women’s March organizers are also centering as a core demand.

    Additionally, the EACH Act would nix the decades-old Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal Medicaid funding for most abortions. Reproductive rights advocates say the amendment disproportionately harms low-income and communities of color, including immigrants and young people. Again, center-right Democrats are acting as the opposition, as Sen. Joe Manchin indicated last week that the Medicaid expansion Democrats are seeking as part of their $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill must include the Hyde Amendment to get his support.

    According to Carmona, 85 percent of the marches organized across the country Saturday were organized by new activists and that pattern has been the same for every Women’s March. Hundreds of organizers have become activated by joining or getting involved with a Women’s March and have stayed active in the movement, even if they haven’t stayed active with the Women’s March organization itself.

    The Russian feminist protest punk rock band Pussy Riot performs on the south lawn of the Texas State Capitol in Austin, Texas, on October 2, 2021, during Women's March ATX.
    The Russian feminist protest punk rock band Pussy Riot performs at the Texas State Capitol in Austin, Texas, on October 2, 2021, during Women’s March ATX.

    “So when we say, ‘Well, one march doesn’t solve anything,’ I don’t think anybody has any illusions about that, but what it does is expands and consolidates our base and acts as an on-ramp for people to find their political home and kind of get in where they fit in and make a difference,” Carmona tells Truthout. “Then the net result of that, that we saw in 2018 in 2020, and I hope we’ll see in 2022, is a record number of women are running campaigns, and a record number of women are voting.”

    Women’s March organizers are hoping that the women they activated Saturday will jump in and make a difference in multiple, interconnected struggles in order to push back against both voter suppression, minoritarian rule, racial injustice and restrictive abortion laws.

    “For too long the issue of abortion and reproductive health care in general has been kind of thought of separately from democracy efforts or racial justice efforts or even justice around immigration, and what we’re seeing right now is a confluence and a very clear kind of point that all of those things are so interconnected that we cannot kind of have one without the other,” Carmona tells Truthout. “When we’re talking about the Women’s Protection Health Care Act, that’s really important for Congress to pass precisely because of the attacks against democracy that has netted us a politicized Supreme Court. So it’s very hard at this point to find the chicken or the egg, and that’s why all of these demands must be met.”

    Republicans in Missouri, Florida and elsewhere are working to replicate Texas’s near-total abortion ban. This year alone, states have enacted more than 90 bills restricting or complicating access to abortion. Those bills join 33 newly enacted voter suppression laws in 19 states so far in 2021, according to a new tally from the Brennan Center for Justice. That’s why, in organizers’ view, it’s so important for those who marched and rallied on Saturday to stay in the fight for long term.

    “We’re really proactive at sparking women’s civic imagination and helping women to see themselves in the future possibly playing a different role in our public space,” Carmona says. “It’s really about that long-term transformation and that happens inside of the organizing work that’s kind of the long tail of the march.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Protesters take part in the Women's March and Rally for Abortion Justice in Austin, Texas, on October 2, 2021.

    As state-level attacks on abortion rights intensify — not only in Texas but also in at least seven GOP-controlled states that are seeking to copy its draconian abortion ban — local abortion funds like the Texas-based Lilith Fund are serving as a locus of resistance.

    These local abortion funds pair direct service (providing the resources to enable people to access an abortion) with an organizing effort to defend and expand access to abortion through collective action and consciousness raising. Erika Galindo, the Lilith Fund’s organizing program manager, spoke with Truthout about some of the reasons why organizing beyond service provision is important, as well as what is really necessary and at stake in the fight to preserve Roe.

    As a Texas-based organization, the Lilith Fund is on the front lines of the fight to protect abortion rights in the U.S., contending with the state’s regressive new anti-abortion law that is part pre-viability ban and part vigilante justice.

    The law, S.B. 8, prohibits free exercise to what should be an ordinary health care decision. Banning abortion after six weeks of pregnancy and providing a private cause of action for individuals to sue people who defy the law, S.B. 8 is an affront to the very spirit of Roe v. Wade. And yet the Supreme Court refused to stop the law from going into effect, claiming it was merely a procedural determination.

    Galindo argues that even as we fight to defend Roe v. Wade from right-wing attacks, it shouldn’t be seen as an adequate standard for abortion access. Speaking in concert with a growing chorus of organizers of color across the country, she argues that beyond extreme six-week bans, many other restrictions prevent many people from accessing abortion — for example, restrictions involving multi-day visits before a procedure, prohibitions on using public funding or insurance for procedures, or even the various targeted restrictions on abortion providers (TRAP) laws. Despite the historic House vote protecting women’s health expressly prohibiting unnecessary restrictions on abortion access like S.B. 8, organizers like Galindo aren’t waiting for federal intervention.

    Anoa Changa: How does the Lilith Fund engage in organizing, beyond the service of covering the costs of abortion for people?

    Erika Galindo: We really think our work is like a two-pronged approach. There’s a direct service part, which is just like getting people to their abortions when you truly can’t afford them. But then there’s the organizing part because we know that, for one, there’s a lot of abortion policy being made right now, but hardly ever with people who’ve had abortions in the room, like an advocacy space, and just like spaces where these decisions are being made. And so, I think the idea was to get people who call our fund directly involved in the organizing to defend and expand abortion access.

    We also know that because a lot of the funds that make up our hotline budget is through grassroots support. That is organizing when people are fundraising amongst their communities, and they’re talking to their friends about why it is that they are supporting the fund or why they support abortion funds. That in itself is like an educational moment.

    Can you talk to me a little more about why looking at abortion as health care instead of some philosophically debated procedure is the better framing?

    Yeah. Abortion is health care. Because, quite frankly, anything that you need to go see a doctor for is immediately health care. People need abortions, yes, because they don’t want to be pregnant anymore. But that can be for a plethora of reasons. And pregnancy itself is not just a super casual thing. It’s like the most dangerous thing that somebody can do. And I think we forget that. But in Texas, especially, it’s really dangerous for women — particularly Black women — to be pregnant, unfortunately, because we don’t have a health care system that isn’t anti-racist yet or fully just not without the biases or ills of the world.

    What I mean when I say that abortion is health care is [that it is] a common procedure; it is safer than some dental procedures. People should be able to access it without having to pay out of pocket. And in Texas, you currently have to pay out of pocket for your abortion, because there’s not even private coverage for it. We do believe that all health care should be accessible to everyone. And that includes abortion.

    It sounds like what you’re saying is we should be providing total coverage for the health care needs that people have, whether they’re choosing to have a baby or choosing to have an abortion whatever the case may be.

    Exactly.

    Much of the focus nationally has been on saving Roe. Is saving Roe enough to protect abortion access and rights for pregnant people in the communities y’all serve or in other parts of the country?

    No. Saving Roe is crucial, but it’s not enough. And it’s never been enough. S.B. 8 is the latest anti-abortion restriction to go into effect. But it’s not the first abortion restriction to successfully be passed and implemented in Texas. We’ve had decades of anti-abortion restrictions like TRAP. We have had Roe eroded in states in the South for years, Texas in particular.

    Roe has never guaranteed that there will be public coverage for abortion, and even in the two years after Roe, there were already attacks through the Hyde Amendment. Roe is like the baseline. It’s the floor, not the ceiling as a lot of people have described it, because it’s like the bare minimum that our country can do. But we need a whole lot more. Roe assumes that there’s a lot of things already functioning well. And there’s not, unfortunately. It’s operating obviously within capitalism.

    When Roe was passed, it was focusing more on a doctor’s right to provide abortions, and that’s assuming that someone can get in front of a doctor, but that’s a huge assumption to make. Especially because health care is also just generally not accessible or a right in this country (or cheap). And because TRAP laws and coverage restrictions have only eroded Roe, it means that it has only gotten harder, because people have to pay out of pocket, take more time off work, find child care, etc.
    We need budgets that support people getting health care, including abortion.

    What would you like people to understand about what’s actually happening in Texas and the work that people are doing?

    I think people in Texas right now are being held hostage. And I say that because Texas is not a red state. Texas is a state that has so many things that are working against regular Texans — like gerrymandering, voter suppression, just like all sorts of things. Then I keep thinking about the fact that this extreme abortion ban was passed in a year where Texans were so bogged down and distracted. We had the winter storm happen. COVID is still happening. Our legislators made no effort to make the legislature accessible and pandemic-safe.

    The legislature has never been accessible. But they really took advantage of the fact that people really can’t travel and go and drop things at a moment’s notice to go to a building where masks are not required. And try to intervene in this process. We had the cards stacked against us from the beginning. I think I just get very frustrated when people tend to write Texas off or the South off as like, a lost cause.

    Texans do not want abortion restrictions. Texans wanted COVID relief and our legislators to fix the grid. That hasn’t happened. And we know that attacking abortion, attacking trans kids … it’s because they don’t want to give Texans or the South the legislation that could actually benefit us.

    Is there anything else that you think is important for people to know?

    I feel like if folks want to help Texas or get in coordination with Texas, I think folks need to of course donate to a fund and figure out how you can volunteer. But I think also getting involved in your own locality is super important.

    Because even if you feel like maybe your state is in a better position, it could very easily not be. Also, even if your state doesn’t have harmful abortion restrictions, folks might still be struggling to pay for their care. So, I would encourage anybody to get involved with their local abortion fund and look to whoever’s been doing this work in your area because they will likely have so much expertise and can tell you exactly where you need to go to fight abortion restrictions.

    This interview has been edited lightly for clarity.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Destiny Lopez, co-president of All* Above All, speaks at rally for abortion access.

    On Thursday, something unprecedented happened in Congress. In a powerful House Oversight Committee hearing concerning growing state-level attacks on abortion care, Representatives Barbara Lee, Cori Bush and Pramila Jayapal, and Texan and community organizer for the Texas Equal Access Fund Maleeha Azizall told their personal abortion stories. They did so to help change the conversation around abortion in the U.S. and send a message that abortion restrictions aren’t about politics but about people.

    At the same time, the legal fight over Texas’s extreme abortion ban continues this week, as a federal judge considers whether to halt the enforcement of the law.

    Nearly 50 years of playing defense against extreme anti-abortion political forces have gotten us where we are today: in the midst of an all-out attack on abortion access, with the Supreme Court allowing Texas politicians to effectively ban abortion in the state, signaling a green light to eager politicians elsewhere that the road is cleared for similar bans across the country.

    If Texas is not the canary in the coal mine, I don’t know what is. It has been 31 days since the Supreme Court made roughly 7 million Texans of child-bearing age — and their families — subject to the political whims of anti-abortion extremists from the state house all the way to the highest ranks of the federal judiciary. And as the Supreme Court prepares to consider a case this December that threatens legal abortion like never before, we must act swiftly and boldly to protect abortion access and expand reproductive freedom in the U.S., or many more of us will see our rights, dignity and opportunities stripped away. And if our efforts center racial, economic and immigrant justice, we can seize a key opportunity to energize and mobilize a progressive base that is hungry for bold leadership — while preserving and expanding access to health care for decades to come.

    This isn’t the time to play more defense or be timid about our policy asks. We can and should think much bigger about what is necessary for an abortion landscape with true and equitable access for all. The time is now for a movement that recognizes the totality of our lives and loves, honors our families’ holistic needs and sees the urgency of correcting the deep economic injustices that anti-abortion lawmakers prey upon.

    The time for abortion justice — a framework that incorporates racial, economic and immigrant justice into solutions to the massive barriers to abortion — is now.

    For decades, policymakers have ignored the expertise of those who have been most harmed by abortion bans and coverage restrictions like the Hyde Amendment, which denies insurance coverage of abortion for people enrolled in Medicaid: people of color, who are inevitably promised that “our” issues will be addressed the next time around. As Representative Bush noted in her remarks during the hearing on Thursday, Black women “live in a society that has failed to legislate love and justice for us. But we deserve better. We demand better.”

    And yet, efforts focused exclusively on maintaining legal abortion haven’t even managed to preserve Roe v. Wade’s protections in the second-largest state in the union, where racist attacks on the right to vote and decades of right-wing gerrymandering have already disenfranchised so many.

    We have spent too much time negotiating limited rights — not just to abortion, but also to the ballot box and others — for the most privileged. That has to stop today. We urge Congress and the White House to think beyond the bare minimum of whether abortion is technically legal, and to instead ensure that abortion is accessible, no matter where we live or how much money we earn. We celebrate the U.S. House vote of the Women’s Health Protection Act to provide essential federal protections for expanding abortion access after decades of attacks on care at the state level. But we must go further, and there are clear steps we can take: We must pass the EACH Act to lift bans on insurance coverage of abortion, end unnecessary barriers to medication abortion care and ensure that whatever someone’s documentation status, they can get the care they need. More local policymakers must follow the lead of New York City, Austin and Portland, which in recent years have dedicated their own local funding to support people who need abortion care.

    Imagine if we affirmed, for those 7 million Texans and their families and for the millions more under threat in this country, that every one of us should be able to live, work and make decisions about our futures with dignity and respect. Imagine if our policymakers recognized that racism, economic insecurity and immigration status multiply the already massive barriers to abortion care, and took proactive steps to launch real policy solutions that address the deep roots of these inequities. Imagine if we stopped trying to preserve a broken status quo, and instead built a new path to reproductive and economic freedom for all of us.

    Imagine the people-power we could build if we stop saying, “Next time, next year, next session.” Imagine saying to millions of progressive voters: “The time to unapologetically live our values is now.” Imagine what we could do if we decide that abortion justice can’t wait.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A group of people are gathered at the Times Square of New York City on September 4, 2021, to protest that a Texas law banned abortion.

    Today the House Oversight Committee holds a hearing to examine states’ efforts to restrict abortion access, and how this has affected patients medically and economically. This hearing comes on the heels of the passage in Texas of S.B. 8 — but the Texas law is only the most recent development within a decades-long trend of states slowly dismantling abortion rights. As a result, the hearing is discussing federal legislation to “protect and expand abortion rights and access” more broadly.

    But the fight for abortion rights is not a top-down effort — it is and always has been staged on a grassroots level. Indeed, the right has made extensive use of these tactics. Far from the liberal call not to “politicize” abortion, the right sees the clinic space as a political territory to be conquered, and has continued to do so — not just in red states, as some might think, but all over New York City as well. It is not a fight to be legislated in the White House but won in the streets.

    The debate around the passage of Texas’s S.B. 8 (which bans all abortions after six weeks, and deputizes private citizens in its enforcement) and other similar bills has focused on its legal mechanisms — the Supreme Court’s shadow docket, its blatant unconstitutionality. The shadow docket, for example — when the Supreme Court makes a decision without the usual long process of receiving an application for a case to be heard, deciding to hear it, announcing it, poring over briefs filed months in advance, making a series of public oral arguments, engaging in an explicit deliberation and offering a thorough presentation of its findings and decisions — comes as a blatant example of the Supreme Court’s lack of democracy and transparency. In this particular case, the court took less than three days and released a single paragraph in the middle of the night, with the majority opinion unsigned.

    While the specificities have differed, this contention of abortion through the courts isn’t new. The question of abortion has for decades now been posed as an issue, first and foremost, of legality. The very premise of Roe, after all, was that abortion was a “decision between a woman and her doctor” and access to it an extension of our right to “privacy.” It was not about the right to health care, gender liberation or democratizing abortion (because there will always be a privileged few with access to safe abortion, even if it is illegal).

    This hyper-fixation on legality has obscured the way in which abortion rights, and reproductive rights more generally, have been chipped away for decades. Despite the technical legality of abortion in the United States, the lived experiences of many have shown that abortion is not in fact safe or accessible. In many cases, it is almost impossible to obtain an abortion, making its legality largely irrelevant. To take one example, as of 2019, six states were down to one abortion clinic: Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota and West Virginia. All anti-abortion laws exacerbate existing inequalities, as they disproportionally impact people of color (and Black people in particular), undocumented people (who often have to choose between the risk of getting deported or the risk of not getting an abortion), poor and working-class people, people without private health insurance, queer and trans people, and so on. Anti-abortion laws kill us.

    The mantra of “safe, legal, and rare” (cue Hillary Clinton doubling down: “and by rare, I mean rare) has actually contributed to the stigmatization of abortion. Tote bags and stickers defending the legitimacy of Planned Parenthood often read, “I went to Planned Parenthood and all I got was a mammogram and a pap smear and STD testing [and so on]” — but, despite its exclusion from official merch, abortions are also a service people receive there, and they should make no secret of it. The right doesn’t attack clinics because we get cancer screenings. We cannot expect to counter them, to fight the backlash against our reproductive health, by skirting the very issue at stake. We need an unapologetic, fighting movement for abortion as a basic right — not a shameful but necessary secret. We need to move away from litigating over when a cell becomes a fetus becomes a baby and what the definition of a heartbeat is. We are not incubators; we are entitled to make our own, sometimes complicated (and sometimes not), decisions free from coercion; and we exist more than just for you. It is really that simple.

    Attacks on abortion, ideological and material, don’t just happen in red states. They happen everywhere, even in what is often called, by anti-abortioners and pro-abortioners alike, the “abortion capital of the United States”: New York City. New York City for Abortion Rights, of which we are members, has been defending clinics against anti-abortion harassers in New York for over four years. The group was founded in 2017 by a group of people (including some of us writing this piece) who came together because we were sick of writing letters to our senators. And we were sick of being told that the best thing to do when anti-abortion harassers stalk clinics is to leave them alone, because “giving them attention is exactly what they want,” because “patients can’t tell the difference” between someone sending them to hell and someone trying to make sure they can access health services safely. (Uhm, yes, they can!) Even Planned Parenthood’s official approach to anti-abortion activity in front of their clinics is, well, to do nothing. We defend Planned Parenthood — every month for years, in fact —but we don’t let their board of directors dictate political strategy. We are patients and providers too.

    In our latest fight against the Archdiocese of New York’s anti-abortion Witness for Life program, we have seen both the religious right and the police work hand-in-hand to crack down on us. Witness for Life is led by the notorious clinic invader Fidelis Moscinski, who has easily been involved in over half of all clinic invasions in the country since 2017 in the tradition of Red Rose Rescues, an ultra-right, militant wing of the anti-abortion movement.

    Early in the morning on the second Saturday of every month, a group of us make our way to St. Patrick’s Roman Catholic Church in Brooklyn, one of the several churches that regularly hosts the Archdiocese of New York’s anti-abortion Witness for Life program. While the Witness for Life followers are in mass inside, we picket in front of the church, holding signs, chanting and raising awareness about how clinic harassment happens here too. Billed as “peaceful prayer,” the program’s weekly mass ends in a march to the nearby Planned Parenthood, where clergy and parishioners — frequently over a hundred of them, frequently bussed in from out of state — assemble to stigmatize abortion and pressure patients to give birth against their will, including through the heinous impersonation of Planned Parenthood escorts. As soon as the procession starts out the door, we assemble in front of them, on the sidewalk, and, essentially, walk very, very slowly backward. The point is to delay them long enough for abortion patients to get into their appointments (the majority of which happen in the morning) without facing them in front of the clinic. A few months ago, we held them off for several hours — we’re talking hours to move 10 blocks.

    On August 14 in Cobble Hill, Brooklyn, the NYPD sent its militarized Strategic Response Group (a particularly violent and well-armed unit, infamous for systematically abusing protesters throughout the 2020 Black Lives Matter uprising) to repress one of our protests opposing harassment. They arrested two of our members and held them for hours before releasing them on several charges. There has been no “justification,” however feeble, from the police. The moment that this historically wealthy and powerful patriarchal organization, which is importantly also the city’s largest landowner, feels threatened by everyday people — who simply refuse to concede that it’s benign for the Catholic Church to stigmatize us in the streets for exercising bodily autonomy — they call in the most repressive arm of the state to beat us back, while continuing to claim religious persecution.

    It is clear that the fight for reproductive justice isn’t going anywhere any time soon; that the Supreme Court isn’t coming to save us; and that Roe will never be a guarantee, because it was never premised on abortion as a democratic right and an unapologetic good. Liberation won’t come from policy wonks or precise and conciliatory word choice; it’ll come from the streets, from showing those intent on stripping us of our agency that they are not welcome here. We need an unapologetic, fighting, explicitly pro-abortion movement that upholds SisterSong’s framework of reproductive justice — the human right to personal bodily autonomy, to have children, not to have children, and to parent the children we do have in safe and sustainable communities — rather than the glib slogan of “the right to choose,” which obscures that choices made out of financial or social coercion are not in fact choices.

    Join us, we need you now more than ever.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Protestors in matching red T-shirts stand on the steps of the Texas Capitol. They hold signs that read: “Don’t mess with Texas voters,” “Black voters matter” and “It’s about us.”

    This story was co-published with Vox

    For decades, the Christian-right foot soldiers who form the backbone of the Republican Party have regularly and enthusiastically showed up for legislative battles over religious freedom and reproductive and LGBTQ rights. On Sept. 1, they scored one of their biggest victories yet: the Texas Heartbeat Act, which bans abortion after six weeks of pregnancy and deputizes private citizens to report anyone who helps a woman obtain an abortion.

    Six days later, religious conservatives celebrated another critical legislative victory, one that signaled a new frontier in their movement. In the east Texas city of Tyler, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott signed the Election Integrity Protection Act of 2021, passed in late August after Democrats fled the state in a futile effort to stop it. The new law severely restricts voting access in Texas, with the biggest impact on voters of color; Abbott hailed it as a “good paradigm for other states to follow.” Also in attendance were his lieutenant governor, Dan Patrick, and state Sen. Bryan Hughes, key architects of both the voter and abortion bills and heroes to evangelical Christians around the U.S. Patrick is well known to religious-right voters for his opposition to reproductive and LGBTQ rights and promotion of “Christian values.” The mood was jubilant.

    The Christian right’s ability to mobilize its own voters has long made it one of the most potent forces in American politics. But this year, evangelical leaders have embraced a new strategy, one with direct roots in the outcome of the 2020 election: Religious activists have taken up the cause of “election integrity,” pushing bills to crack down on voter fraud, even though no evidence of widespread fraud in U.S. elections exists. In the process, they’ve helped restrict ballot access for millions of Americans – the most regressive wave of voting measures since the Jim Crow era – and drawn a direct connection between their new cause and their core religious beliefs.

    The goal is to protect the gains made by the Christian right during Donald Trump’s presidency, especially in the federal courts – and to restore the White House and Congress to Republican control. The biggest prize, of course, is the U.S. Supreme Court, where – not coincidentally – all three of Trump’s appointees declined to block the Texas abortion bill from taking effect, signaling their willingness to overturn Roe v. Wade. 
    White evangelicals were Trump’s most loyal supporters in 2020, giving him 84% of their vote, according to the Pew Research Center. Many saw Trump as anointed by God to save America at a critical juncture in its history, and they viewed his loss in cataclysmic terms. A January survey by the American Enterprise Institute found that religious conservatives were far more inclined than other Republicans to believe Trump’s lies about widespread election fraud, as well as wild conspiracy theories about QAnon, antifa and the “deep state.” The fervent evangelical support for Trump during his presidency has now morphed into support for his “big lie” – and for voter suppression bills that are a direct outgrowth of Trump’s continued insistence that the election was stolen from him.

    Texas Gov. Greg Abbott speaks into a microphone. Former President Donald Trump stands behind him.
    Texas Gov. Greg Abbott speaks alongside former President Donald Trump during a June tour to an unfinished section of the U.S.-Mexico border wall in Pharr, Texas. Credit: Brandon Bell/Getty Images

    Across the country, Christian-right groups that saw their influence bloom during Trump’s presidency have taken up the cause not just in statehouses and fundraising appeals, but also in churches and prayer calls with followers. The Christian voter mobilization group My Faith Votes, for example, has launched an initiative called Election Integrity Now, complete with a prayer guide with seven ways to ask God “to protect America’s elections and deliver trustworthy results.”

    “The 2020 elections revealed genuine concerns in the election process that could threaten election integrity and the very foundation of our Constitutional Republic. Yet, even more dangerous than election fraud is that many Christians have lost confidence in the election system,” the group’s CEO, Jason Yates, said in announcing the initiative. 

    It is also becoming increasingly evident to pollsters, demographers and religious-right leaders themselves that the model first pioneered by the Christian Coalition in the Reagan era – ensuring that religious conservatives registered to vote and turned out in overwhelming numbers on Election Day – isn’t working as well as it used to. 

    White evangelical Protestants now make up 14% of Americans, down from 23% in 2006, “the most precipitous drop in affiliation” for any religious group, according to the Public Religion Research Institute’s 2020 Religious Landscape Survey. Even though White evangelicals made up 34% of Trump’s voters, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of election data, their support wasn’t sufficient to propel him to reelection. “Without such broad support for Trump among White evangelicals, (Joe) Biden would have beaten him by more than 20 points,” the Pew analysts wrote earlier this year. 

    Trump’s defeat proves that even massive conservative Christian turnout is no longer enough to win. The strategy White evangelical supporters have coalesced around to supplement it: election laws built on the lie that the other side’s ability to turn out voters must be “fraudulent.” 


    The new battlefront opened in Georgia immediately after the 2020 election. 

    As Trump tried to strong-arm state election officials to throw out the ballots of 11,780 Georgians and declare him the winner of the state’s 16 Electoral College votes, the Family Policy Alliance of Georgia sent a fundraising email to its supporters in December: “Election reform is coming to Georgia, and we are all in!” 

    Cole Muzio, the group’s executive director, acknowledged that this was new territory for his organization. “As you know, this is not one of our ‘core issues,’ ” he wrote. “However, issues like life, religious freedom, and school choice will never win if the vote is being diluted by radical leftists exploiting the system to cheat.”

    Muzio’s organization was affiliated with Focus on the Family, the Christian-right icon known for opposing LGBTQ and reproductive rights. Elsewhere, Muzio acknowledged launching his group in 2017 after “seeing that our state was rapidly moving ‘blue’ and that the Church had been weakened greatly.” 

    Throughout Georgia’s runoff campaign, which would determine control of the U.S. Senate, the Family Policy Alliance repeatedly attacked Democrats Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock as hostile to Christians, but particularly Warnock, a minister who leads the Ebenezer Baptist Church, where the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. once presided. 

    “Raphael Warnock holds the title of ‘pastor,’ ” the group wrote in one Facebook post. (The group has recently rebranded itself as the Frontline Policy Council.) “Yet, he OPPOSES what God’s Word clearly says about Life. His radical pro-abortion views are disgusting, wrong, anti-science, and anti-Scripture. Quite simply, he’s Unfit for the Pulpit and Unfit for the Senate.” A voter guide titled “Which Candidate Stands Firm on the Word of God?” accused Warnock of being a Marxist, anti-Semitic and anti-Israel – all lies – and attacked his views supporting abortion and transgender rights. Muzio initially agreed to an interview for this story but ultimately didn’t respond to requests to speak.

    Raphael Warnock stands near an outdoor mural. He wears a face mask that says, “Vote.”
    The Rev. Raphael Warnock attends a canvassing event Jan. 5 in Marietta, Ga. The Democratic Senate candidate won in a runoff election that day, though Christian-right groups had attacked him as hostile to Christians. Credit: Sandy Huffaker/AFP via Getty Images

    When Democrats stunned even themselves by winning both seats in the Jan. 5 runoff, Georgia Republicans sprang into action, introducing a slate of bills that would – among other things – eliminate drop-box sites, impose more restrictive rules for absentee ballots and prohibit judges from extending voting hours at precincts experiencing long waits, all under the guise of stopping fraud. Another objective was to defeat Warnock, who is up for reelection in 2022.

    The flurry of legislation overtly became about religion and race, pitting White evangelical Republicans against Black church leaders, whose flocks are predominantly Democratic. One provision would have eliminated Sunday voting, a potentially dire blow to get-out-the-vote efforts of Black churches and their “souls to the polls” events that have been at the core of Black voter mobilization for decades. 

    A national outcry led legislators to nix that provision. But Republican lawmakers ignored the objections of the state’s Black pastors to the bill’s many other restrictive provisions. Black leaders couldn’t even get a meeting with GOP leaders, said the Rev. Timothy McDonald III, senior pastor of the First Iconium Baptist Church in Atlanta. “They didn’t pay any of us any mind.” 

    Less than two months after the bill was introduced, Gov. Brian Kemp signed a 98-page law that criminalizes providing water or food to voters standing in line and empowers state officials to replace local election officials – for example, the Democratic registrar of voters in Fulton County, which includes Atlanta – with appointees from their own party. The impact would be greatest for Black voters. “It is How to Steal an Election 101,” McDonald said.

    A man grabs a slice of pizza from a box held by a volunteer. In the background, a long line of people snakes down the sidewalk.
    A volunteer passes out pizza to people waiting to vote in October 2020 in Lawrenceville, Ga. Earlier this year, the state passed new voter restrictions that, among other things, criminalizes providing water or food to voters standing in line. Credit: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

    The ceremonial signing served only to highlight the bill’s racial overtones. It took place behind closed doors, with Kemp flanked by six White male legislators, sitting under a painting of a plantation. When state Rep. Park Cannon, a Black Democrat, knocked on the door to gain entry to the event, she was arrested for obstructing law enforcement and disrupting the General Assembly. 

    On the Family Policy Alliance website, Muzio denounced “the deranged media” and “Pretend-governor Stacey Abrams” – the Democratic candidate who narrowly lost to Kemp in 2018 – for their “outlandish and inflammatory rhetoric.” He called the claim that the bill is racist “wrong, disingenuous, a form of voter suppression, and, in fact, racist on its face.”  

    His words signaled a subtle reframing, echoing the Christian right’s perspective on almost every other issue in the culture wars: Progressives were the real over-reachers and evangelical Christians the true victims. The Georgia law didn’t suppress the votes of Democrats and people of color, Muzio was saying; it prevented the votes of religious conservatives from being suppressed.


    Even as Black church leaders mobilized to contest the Georgia law in court, conservative groups were gearing up to replicate it in other states. 

    National Christian-right organizations embraced “election integrity” with fervor. In March, Heritage Action for America, a sister organization of the right-wing policy hub The Heritage Foundation, announced it would pour at least $10 million into lobbying and TV and online ads about the urgent need to “protect the rights of every American to a fair election.” In a video obtained by Mother Jones, a Heritage Action official admitted that the organization drafted the legislation in many states, including Georgia, and helped organize support. 

    At the same time, evangelical leaders opposed measures that would make it easier to vote. Advocates particularly targeted the For the People Act, which would create nationwide automatic voter registration, restore voting rights of the formerly incarcerated, and expand voting by mail and early voting, while also shoring up the security of election infrastructure. The Phyllis Schlafly Eagles – an offshoot of the group once headed by the late conservative icon best known for helping kill the Equal Rights Amendment – claimed (falsely) that the bill “would enshrine Democrat ballot stuffing into federal law forever.” The Family Research Council called it “a federal power grab that cripples states’ ability to run elections and increases the likelihood of voter fraud” (another lie). Other conservative activists contended that the act’s financial disclosure requirements violated First Amendment protections for religious speech. 

    In early February, the Family Research Council’s president, Tony Perkins, led a discussion at the influential megachurch Cornerstone Chapel in Virginia with Michael Farris, a longtime conservative activist and now president of the Christian-right legal powerhouse Alliance Defending Freedom.

    Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council
    Family Research Council President Tony Perkins (right) welcomes U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to the Values Voter Summit in Washington in 2018. Credit: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

    Declaring election integrity “vital for our future,” Farris claimed to have undertaken a “thorough study” of the 2020 election and to have found “constitutional irregularities in many, many states,” particularly in those where the election was close. He claimed the “central problem was the failure to follow the pre-established process in counting the votes” and insisted that if votes had been properly tallied, Trump would have won. Neither Farris nor his organization has ever provided proof of those accusations, and they did not respond to Reveal’s requests for Farris to share them.

    The Family Research Council also deployed Kenneth Blackwell, its senior fellow for human rights and constitutional governance, who has long been a central player in the movement to limit access, dating back to his tenure as Ohio secretary of state, when civil rights advocates accused him of suppressing voters of color in the 2004 presidential election and helping Republicans keep the White House. In a March appearance on the video series “Pray Vote Stand,” Blackwell, who is Black, called the For the People Act a “heist” and a “power grab” that would “stifle individual religious liberty and the centrality of God in our lives.” Mostly, Blackwell urged religious voters to stay engaged. “We must claw back the responsibility and the authority of local governments and state legislatures” to control elections or else, he contended, Democrats would create “one-party control much like they have in Cuba, Venezuela and Russia.”

    My Faith Votes’ national honorary chairman, talk show host and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, took credit for helping get 9 million new Christian voters to the polls in 2020 and promised, “in 2021, we will be doubling down.” Ralph Reed, chairman of the national Faith & Freedom Coalition, beseeched potential donors: “Though news of the radical left’s scheming is hard to read, remember that – thanks to your support and the support of Christian patriots like you – we still have a chance to save America in the 2022 midterm elections, and we will make the most of it.” 

    Republican lawmakers did their part to stoke the fires. At the Faith & Freedom Coalition’s national Road to Majority conference in June, for example, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham portrayed Democratic victories in 2022 and 2024 as an existential threat that would lead to statehood for the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico and the end of the Electoral College. “Winning in 2022 is the only option available for conservatism,” he said. “We need you to get people out of your churches into that voting booth.” 

    There were plenty of true believers. A Washington Post-ABC News poll from June found that while only 30% of all respondents favored passing “new laws making it harder for people to vote fraudulently,” 51% of White evangelicals supported such legislation. While 62% of all Americans expressed support for “new laws making it easier for people to vote,” only 43% of White evangelicals did. 

    By that time, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, 17 states already had enacted 28 new laws suppressing voting rights. And then came Texas. 


    During this year’s Texas legislative session, it wasn’t the anti-abortion Heartbeat Act that was deemed the greater threat by Texas Democrats, but voter integrity legislation. The abortion bill, targeting not just abortion but anyone helping a woman in the state obtain one, made it through the Legislature relatively unscathed and was signed into law May 19. Republicans’ attempt to pass a voter bill – including criminal penalties on election officials who send unsolicited mail-ballot applications and new powers for partisan poll watchers – required two special legislative sessions, after Democrats ran out the clock on the first bill, then fled the state for a month in protest.

    At the first special session in July, many of the demonstrators on the statehouse grounds opposed the voting legislation. But Lori Gallagher of Williamson County, Texas, was there to show her support. The group she co-founded, the Texas Constitutionalists, describes itself as “grassroots conservatives with a mission to educate ourselves and our neighbors to be actively involved in Texas State and County government to secure our vote and restore our representational Republic.” But she saw its mission in starkly religious terms. 

    “I believe that the divine hand of providence was present when our constitutional and founding documents were formed,” she said. “I believe that’s the divine intersection between voting rights. The people’s voice – that comes from God. Your freedom comes from God. Liberty comes from God.”

    Inside the hearing room, with just two minutes to speak, Don Garner, executive director of the Texas Faith & Freedom Coalition, focused more on politics, echoing Christian-right talking points that have become increasingly familiar this year. Election integrity is “foundational to the freedoms we enjoy,” he declared. “Nothing suppresses voting more than the erosion of trust or confidence in the election process itself.”

    But Garner’s brief remarks had far less impact than his relationships. For 10 years, he served as the state director and national field director of the Capitol Commission, a network of organizations in state capitols that hosts Bible studies and other events with lawmakers. The goal: “making disciples of Jesus Christ in the Capitol communities of the world,” according to its website. His current organization, formed in March 2020, keeps voters informed “about important issues relevant to faith-based communities” and “supports Biblical principles.”  

    Republican Sen. Bryan Hughes, an author of the voting restriction and anti-abortion bills, is one of about a dozen Texas state legislators who serve on Garner’s advisory council. In an interview, Garner said Hughes is “a close friend and someone that I work very closely with on all kinds of things.” The House sponsor of the voting bill, Rep. Briscoe Cain, is another close ally. As the legislation was moving, Garner said he talked to Cain or his staff “every couple of days, all session long.” Garner said his coalition’s clout comes from its grassroots volunteers who show up when needed, canvassing 310,000 homes in the last election cycle and planning to hit twice as many next year. Lawmakers know “we’re actually getting out there and knocking on doors.”

    Conservative Christian voters, Garner said, have always had concerns about election integrity, but especially so after the 2020 election. 

    “Obviously, there were a lot of concerns afterwards and among people on the right that maybe there had been improprieties, and certainly, people felt like it at least needed to be investigated,” Garner said. “Because of everything that – the way everything fell out, certainly it raised the level of concern.” 

    Even as Trump and his evangelical allies basked in their legislative victories in Texas, they used those concerns to promote their future political prospects. In a conference call for Intercessors for America the day after the abortion law took effect, Trump wasted no time in lambasting the Biden administration, saying, without specificity or evidence, that “what they’re doing to Christianity, it’s a very sad, sad thing for our country.”

    Robert Morris, pastor of the Gateway megachurch in Dallas, closed the call with a plea: “I pray, Lord, that you will do something … for our election system, that we’ll never have another election stolen from us,” he intoned. “So Lord, whatever we need to do to fix the electoral process, I pray for that, I pray for our country, and I pray for President Trump and his family … in Jesus’ mighty name.”

    Freelance journalist Alexandra Villarreal contributed to this story. It was edited by Nina Martin and Andrew Donohue of Reveal and Libby Nelson of Vox. It was copy edited by Nikki Frick of Reveal. Sarah Posner can be reached at sarahposner1@gmail.com. Follow her on Twitter: @sarahposner.

    How the Christian Right Embraced Voter Suppression is a story from Reveal. Reveal is a registered trademark of The Center for Investigative Reporting and is a 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization.

    This post was originally published on Reveal.

  • I watched Jordan Peele’s Candyman last Thursday night, and it freaked me out.

    Especially as a Texan.

    Can acts of injustice curse a place? Can acts of monstrosity—as Peele et al. suggest—stain a community?
    A quasi-sequel to the 1992 film of the same name, Candyman explores the affirmative answer to these questions. And that’s what scares me.

    Over the last several years I’ve researched and written about numerous acts of injustice and monstrosity in Texas. And, no, monstrosity is not too strong a word. In 2014, The History Press published my second book, The 1910 Slocum Massacre: An Act of Genocide in East Texas. It explored the history behind a wholesale slaughter of African Americans that occurred just south of Palestine, Texas in the early 20th century. The number of casualties far exceeded those of the Rosewood Massacre in Florida in 1923, and rivaled those of the Tulsa Race Massacre in 1921. And hardly anyone in Texas had ever even heard of it.

    In 2015, I followed the Slocum Massacre book up with Black Holocaust: The Paris Horror and a Legacy of Texas Terror, released by Eakin Press. The term “Holocaust” was too strong for my first publisher, and probably too controversial in general, but I felt I owed it to the subject matter. Between 1861 and 1933, over forty black men were burned at the stake in Texas. And not like the witches that were burned at the stake in Salem, Massachusetts—because that never happened—but like real, living, breathing human beings (and fellow Texans) burned at the stake, often in front of cheering white folks.

    Again, no, that isn’t an exaggeration.

    Cheering.

    White.

    Folks.

    Four black men were burned at the stake in the Paris, Texas area, three in Sulphur Springs, three in Kirven, two in Waco, at least two in in Tyler, one in Rockwall, one in Hillsboro, one in Temple, one in Belton, one in Conroe, one in Sherman, one in Texarkana, one in Corsicana, one in Greenville, etc., etc. And some of these cases involved levels of evil and depravity that make the Candyman plotlines pale (pardon the pun) in comparison.

    In Paris, Texas in 1893, a mob of thousands watched on as Henry Smith—a black man suspected of raping and killing a white toddler—was tortured with red hot iron pokers for forty-five minutes (by the infant’s father and older brother) before being gruesomely burned to a crisp. They peeled away the skin on his arms, legs, back and abdomen by rolling the searing pokers on contact, reheating them as necessary, and then used them to boil away his eyeballs and burn out his tongue. The white crowd cheered the vicious cruelty and raucously jeered the black suspect’s moans of pain and suffering. The Paris mayor even canceled school for the day so the community’s children could view the spectacle with their parents.

    In 1895, the citizens of Tyler seized Henry Hillard—a black man suspected of raping and killing a white woman—and burned him at the stake in front a mob of thousands, partially extinguishing and then reviving the flames so as to extend the effect and general excruciation of the torture to entertain and appease white onlookers. After futilely begging his tormentors to put him out of his misery, Hillard began attempting to bash his own brains out by slamming the back of his head against the iron rail he was affixed to.

    In 1915, the citizens of Waco perpetrated the ghastly burning at the stake of Jesse Washington (a mentally handicapped black man suspected of killing a white woman) in full view of the mayor and the local police. The perpetrating mob castrated Washington on the way to the stake and also cut off his fingers. Then, after several times being raised and lowered into the flames for the greatest effect as he was burned alive, Washington began trying to escape his hellish fate by climbing the chain with fingerless hands.

    And these are just a fraction of the dozens of macabre atrocities that make the origins of Candyman seem tame. Texans, our forebears, committed atrocities in front of cheering white neighbors. And then created lynching postcards and stereographic viewing sets to celebrate and commemorate these horrific events, which—don’t kid yourself—many of our great-great-great grandads and kinfolk jovially referred to as roasts and barbecues.

    Mr. Peele and his associates (and their predecessors) touch on something fundamentally raw, here; something largely unheralded and involving injuries long concealed and clearly unaddressed.

    I’d urge fellow Texans to refrain from the namesake character’s name-chant game, because the facts in Texas are darker than the fiction in Candyman.

    That’s why conservatives don’t want the truth taught in schools.

    The post Say Their Names first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Donald Trump peers at the back of the conference room at television cameras at the Hilton Anatole Hotel in Dallas, Texas, on July 11, 2021.

    Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s administration announced a “forensic audit” of the 2020 election in four of that state’s biggest counties on Thursday even as a similar effort in Arizona showed President Joe Biden winning with an even larger margin.

    The Texas secretary of state’s office announced the probe hours after former President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly pushed debunked lies about the election, demanded that Texas Gov. Greg Abbott add an election audit bill to the state legislature’s special session. Trump won Texas comfortably, but for unclear reasons is unsatisfied with that result.

    There has been no evidence of widespread fraud or irregularities in the Texas election but Trump wrote in his letter to Abbott that Texans “don’t trust your election system, and they want your leadership on this issue, which is the number one thing they care about.”

    Hours later, the Texas secretary of state’s office issued a statement announcing that it has “already begun the process in Texas’ two largest Democrat counties and two largest Republican counties — Dallas, Harris, Tarrant, and Collin — for the 2020 election,” calling for the legislature to fund the effort.

    The office is currently led by an interim chief after former Republican Secretary of State Ruth Hughs resigned amid Republican acrimony over her office confirming that the state’s election was “smooth and secure.”

    The statement did not say what prompted the move but Democrats said the state was clearly bending to Trump’s will.

    “Let me be the first to congratulate the disgraced former president, Donald Trump, on his apparently becoming the new governor of Texas,” tweeted state Rep. Chris Turner, a Democrat. “Pitiful yet predictable that [Abbott] has capitulated to Trump yet again.”

    Trump has continued to push baseless allegations of fraud in last year’s election even though his own Justice Department investigated at the time and found no evidence. Trump has called for so-called “audits” similar to the one in Arizona in other states, including Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Georgia.

    But leaked draft copies of audit results from Maricopa County, Arizona, on Thursday showed that Trump lost by a wider margin than the county previously reported. Though the draft audit report still attempts to push questions about the election process, which experts say are misleading, the document also debunked various of Trump’s conspiracy theories, including “Sharpiegate” and claims that the county received tens of thousands of absentee ballots that had not been sent out. Trump insisted after the leak that the audit “uncovered significant and undeniable evidence of FRAUD” even though a spokesman for the review told reporters that “it doesn’t look like it” uncovered evidence of a “massive fraud or anything.”

    “If Trump and his supporters can’t prove it here, with a process they designed, they can’t prove it anywhere,” David Becker, executive director of the Center for Election Innovation and Research, told The New York Times.

    Though the audit failed to show evidence of Trump’s fraud and vote-switching conspiracy theories, it is expected to cost taxpayers millions after Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, decertified the voting machines handed over to Cyber Ninjas, the Trump-linked firm behind the audit, because election officials had no idea what the company did with them after taking them into custody.

    While the Maricopa County audit was largely paid for by private donations from Trump supporters, the Texas secretary of state’s office expects that the legislature will use taxpayer funds to fund its effort.

    Isabel Longoria, elections administrator for Harris County, the state’s largest, told the Austin American-Statesman that the audit is “another attack by officials on our communities’ trust in elections.”

    “Our office has been focused on running fair elections with innovative, equitable approaches during an unprecedented pandemic,” she said.

    Texas lawmakers, who already passed a slew of new voting restrictions in response to alleged concerns about “election integrity” — almost entirely the result of fear-mongering by Trump and his allies — earlier this year passed a law empowering the secretary of state’s office to audit two years worth of election results of up to four counties at a time.

    Republicans in Wisconsin, where there have already been multiple audits and recounts of the results that confirmed Trump’s loss, have launched an investigation into the election led by a former state Supreme Court justice who spoke at “Stop the Steal” rallies. He said this week that the probe “may include a vigorous and comprehensive audit if the facts that are discovered justify such a course of action.”

    Pennsylvania Republicans last week subpoenaed personal information, including driver’s license numbers and Social Security numbers, of every voter in the state as part of a similar investigation. Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, filed a lawsuit seeking to block the subpoenas on Thursday, calling the request “illegal, unconstitutional, and unenforceable.”

    Texas Democrats say the state’s “audit” is the latest example of the Republicans bowing to Trump despite no evidence to back up his allegations.

    “This is all an organized effort to overturn the will of the people,” Gilberto Hinojosa, chairman of the Texas Democratic Party, told the Times, “in an effort to fuel the ‘Big Lie’ and stroke Trump’s ego.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Texas Governor Greg Abbott is seen on field before Game 1 of the 2020 World Series between the Los Angeles Dodgers and the Tampa Bay Rays at Globe Life Field on October 20, 2020, in Arlington, Texas.

    Earlier in September, two significant events occurred that would shape women’s rights. First, the U.S. finally withdrew from Afghanistan, ending its 20-year war and occupation. Second, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 not to block a Texas law that prohibits most abortions in that state. The media were awash in stories of the Talibanization of Afghan society and the loss of women’s rights in that country. We also saw stories on the attack on women’s rights right here in the U.S.

    However, rather than see these incidents halfway around the world as a product of right-wing forces wanting to control women and their lives, some have revived an older narrative that tries to explain white supremacy, neo-Nazism and right-wing ascendancy as the product of the encounter with the colonized “other.”

    Thus, Thomas Friedman in a recent op-ed in The New York Times posed the question of whether U.S. intervention in the Middle East has achieved its publicly stated goal of getting the region to embrace “pluralism and the rule of law,” or instead has wound up “mimicking” its “tribalism.”

    Meanwhile, a photoshopped image of Supreme Court justices in which the three female judges are shown wearing burqas with their faces covered appeared on social media.

    The logic of the image, presumably posted by someone who supports the right to abortion, is that of a Talibanized Supreme Court, one that has “mimicked” the Middle East or Central Asia and brought “alien values” into the heart of the United States.

    This image was part of a media landscape in which the plight of Afghan women under the Taliban was once again dominant. Just like in 2001, the media suddenly discovered Afghan women. (My study with a colleague showed a dramatic increase in stories about Afghan women in the media in lead up to the U.S. invasion which served to justify it.) In a repeat of themes articulated in 2001, media pundits and political elites alike promoted the idea that decades of “progress” under U.S. occupation would be undone by the Taliban’s return to power. Once again, feminism and women’s rights were weaponized to serve imperial aims. This time, however, it was deployed to justify a 20-year occupation and to paper over the U.S.’s defeat at the hands of the Taliban.

    In reality, the situation for women in Afghanistan, by and large, did not improve under U.S. occupation. An April 2021 National Intelligence Council report states that while “some policies” that negatively impacted Afghan women may have ended after the fall of the Taliban in the early 2000s, “many continue[d] in practice even in government-controlled [i.e., U.S.-backed] areas, and years of war have left millions of women maimed, widowed, impoverished, and displaced.” The explanation for the ongoing plight of Afghan women, the report suggests, is Afghan “cultural norms.”

    The common logic underlying Friedman’s op-ed, the photoshopped Supreme Court image, as well as the National Intelligence Council report is that of a “clash of civilizations.” We have on the one hand an enlightened “West” that champions women’s rights, and on the other, a backward and misogynistic “Muslim world.” While the Taliban are indeed a retrograde force, it is important to look more deeply at the role the U.S. played in Afghanistan. Indeed, the U.S.’s failure to “liberate” women is not so much the product of the backward “culture” of Afghan people, but rather its choice of allies: the very same misogynistic warlords who began the attacks on women’s rights in the early 1990s.

    Journalist Anand Gopal has documented the complex picture for Afghan women through his extensive interviews with women in the countryside where the vast majority of Afghans live. Far from the hapless victim, the picture that emerges from his account is not only one that shows how the U.S. threw these women from the frying pan into the fire through its support for the warlords, but also one that highlights the determination of women to survive and fight both U.S. occupation and Talibanization.

    Yet, such stories that grant agency to Afghan women are in a minority. The narrative of Muslim women as oppressed victims has animated U.S. culture to such an extent that portrayals of the rescue of Brown women from Brown men is ubiquitous. This narrative, which scholars have referred to as colonial or imperial feminism, has a long history that goes back to the height of European colonization of much of the world in the 19th century when women’s rights were weaponized in service to empire. But imperial feminism benefits neither women in colonized spaces nor the vast majority of women right here in the imperial center.

    At its core, imperial feminism erases not only the agency of women in the Global South but also that of women in the U.S. Indeed, the two are historically and inextricably connected.

    It took women suffragists no less than a century of struggle to secure the right to vote in the U.S. against a fierce and demeaning opposition, as seen in this anti-suffrage postcard from the early 20th century. However, racist gerrymandering practices have sought to undo the voting power of women of color.

    This was not a product of the Taliban or the colonial encounter with “backward people” but very much a product of deep-rooted sexism and racism indigenous to U.S. culture.

    Similarly, it took a women’s movement to win not only the right to terminate a pregnancy, but also, thanks largely to feminists of color, the right to carry a pregnancy to term and not be forced to undergo sterilization. The Christian right has since been trying to undo women’s reproductive rights, as evident in the recent Texas law, not because of some external factors but due to homegrown misogyny.

    To be sure, the colonizer and colonized, the imperial center and the periphery, have always been marked by a symbiotic relationship, as Edward Said argued in Culture and Imperialism. Ironically, the forces of the right in the U.S. have more in common with the Taliban than they do with women’s rights advocates in either context.

    Moreover, as noted above, imperial feminism also erases the agency of women in the Global South, and its own role in undermining the struggle for women’s rights globally. Thus, against the wishes of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA), founded in 1977 and perhaps the country’s most significant women’s rights organization, the U.S. decided to invade the country.

    RAWA’s founder, Meena, was killed in 1987 by Afghan agents of the KGB in connivance with U.S. agents, particularly the misogynist Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. As is now well documented, in order to defeat the Soviet Union, the U.S. supported groups with reactionary social goals with full knowledge of their violent and repressive tendencies. Hekmatyar of the Islamist group Hezb-e-Islami, for instance, received large sums of U.S. aid in the aftermath of the Soviet invasion in 1979, even though, as journalist Tim Wiener notes, Hekmatyar’s “followers first gained attention by throwing acid in the faces of women who refused to wear the veil.” Wiener’s CIA and State Department sources described Hekmatyar as “scary,” “vicious,” “a fascist” and “definite dictatorship material.” Yet, they supported him in order to advance U.S. geopolitical interests.

    RAWA opposed U.S. intervention right from the start and demanded that U.S./NATO forces withdraw. In a recent interview that the Afghan Women’s Mission conducted with RAWA, the organization states quite clearly that over the “past 20 years, one of our demands was an end to the US/NATO occupation.” They go on to add:

    [E]ven better if they take their Islamic fundamentalists and technocrats with them and let our people decide their own fate. This occupation only resulted in bloodshed, destruction and chaos. They turned our country into the most corrupt, insecure, drug-mafia and dangerous place especially for women.

    However, with the exception of a rare op-ed here and there, mainstream discourse in the U.S. has largely failed to give voice to RAWA. If anything, to the extent that we have seen images of Afghan women protesting Taliban rule in the mainstream media, it is framed in ways that suggest that it was the U.S. occupation that made that possible. Again, the agency of Afghan feminists and women’s rights organizations are erased and rendered invisible.

    What is relatively new is the repackaging of an older narrative that seeks to cast blame on the “other” for problems in the domestic context. This thread runs through the op-ed by Friedman and the doctored image of the Supreme Court.

    Today, you can buy a t-shirt of Joe Biden wearing a turban and scarf with the slogan “Make the Taliban Great Again.”

    The t-shirt, undoubtedly produced by Donald Trump’s supporters playing on Trump’s signature slogan, is designed to equate Biden with the Taliban. Recently, a series of billboards with the same image appeared in Pennsylvania, the work of a former senator from the state, Scott Wagner.

    By depicting Biden in this way, the image seeks to convey the message that the U.S. has been Talibanized by Biden. Even though it was Trump who promised to end the “forever wars” and withdraw from Afghanistan, the right has chosen to direct its ire at Biden. This anger is a product of various factors, including support for the U.S. war on Afghanistan. However, what is noteworthy here is that Biden is presented as part of the Taliban because he is dressed, in this photoshopped image, in a turban and scarf. Cultural racism works by depicting aspects of a religion or culture as backward as a means to create “others.” Thus, Muslim women who wear hijabs bear the brunt of xenophobic violence.

    This is not just a tactic of the right. The Clinton campaign in 2008 was criticized for circulating a picture of Barack Obama in a turban as a way to garner white support for Hillary Clinton by creating Obama as a racialized “other.”

    However, this has been taken to a whole new level with Biden being depicted as an agent of the Taliban. While there is a long history of the right claiming that Obama is a “secret Muslim” and an agent of Muslim-majority countries, to represent a white person, i.e. Biden, as a Taliban fighter, speaks to how “race” and the construction of enemies is an ever-shifting process. Significantly, the “America” of white supremacy, rather than be restored to its “greatness,” has been defiled by people like Biden per this billboard. Biden’s ejection from whiteness marks a new phase in the evolution of the rhetoric of anti-Muslim racism.

    Unfortunately, this form of Islamophobia is not just the province of the right. The doctored image of the Supreme Court accepts this logic, as does Friedman’s op-ed, albeit in different and more subtle ways.

    This sort of argument has a long lineage, harking back, for example, to analyses of Nazism. Even such an astute critic of Nazism as Hannah Arendt, in volume three of The Origins of Totalitarianism, wrote that the Nazi Holocaust was due not to factors internal to European history, but rather to Europeans’ encounter with those whom they colonized. According to Arun Kundnani, Arendt’s “model for this process of alien corruption was Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness. European colonizers, confronted by the ‘savagery’ of the colonized population, degenerated into ‘savages’ themselves, setting the precedent for the would-be totalitarian rulers of the European ‘mob.’ Thus, the origin of ‘our’ savagery lies in ‘their’ culture; Western civilization can be corrupted by the barbarism of others but does not give rise to any distinctive barbarism of its own.”

    In fact, the causality has often proceeded in the opposite direction: the subjugation and dehumanization that imperial powers have inflicted on colonized peoples has been brought back home to reinforce dominant class interests in the metropole. As Aimé Césaire argued forcefully in his book, Discourse on Colonialism, the genocide of Jews in Europe was nothing but the application internally of what European colonial powers had been practicing externally. The two were intimately tied. European fascism, even beyond Germany, applied practices to white people that were “until then … reserved exclusively for the Arabs of Algeria, the ‘coolies’ of India, and the ‘n….s’ of Africa.” In short, Césaire argued that fascism in its various manifestations was very much a product of factors internal to Europe.

    W. E. B. Du Bois, in The World and Africa, made a similar argument, asserting that: “There was no atrocity — concentration camps, wholesale maiming and murder, defilement of women or ghastly blasphemy of childhood — which Christian civilization or Europe had not long been practicing against colored folk in all parts of the world in the name of and for the defense of a Superior Race born to rule the world.”

    It therefore behooves progressives to eschew arguments that blame the Taliban or the Middle East for the attack on women’s rights in the U.S. Let us not displace the source of threat to women’s rights to external forces through a contorted racist logic. At the end of the day, women all over the world face oppression, even if their oppression looks different in parts of the world and is inflected by various factors, including their class position within a neoliberal order. Only an anti-imperialist politics can build the kind of internationalism needed to liberate women around the globe and dismantle neoliberal imperialism.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • An abortion rights activist holds a sign in support of Planned Parenthood at a rally at the Texas State Capitol on September 11, 2021 in Austin, Texas.

    While Republican lawmakers in several states are working to replicate an abortion ban recently enacted in Texas, healthcare providers and reproductive rights advocates on Thursday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider blocking the “patently unconstitutional” measure.

    “For 23 days, we’ve been forced to deny essential abortion care for the vast majority of patients who come to us,” said Amy Hagstrom Miller, president and CEO of Whole Woman’s Health and Whole Woman’s Health Alliance, in a statement about the new request (pdf).

    “Most of those we’ve turned away told us they would not be able to make it out of Texas for care,” she said. “I don’t know what happened to these patients after they left our clinics, but I can’t stop thinking about them. Forcing our staff to tell patients ‘no’ day after day is cruel. This chaos must come to an end, and that is why we are going back to the Supreme Court today.”

    Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), also emphasized the urgent need for an intervention to ensure access to essential healthcare.

    “Planned Parenthood call centers have become crisis hotlines and health center staff have become crisis counselors,” said the PPFA leader, whose group is representing Texas healthcare providers, abortion funds, and other plaintiffs alongside the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), the Lawyering Project, the national ACLU, the ACLU of Texas, and Morrison & Foerster LLP.

    “For half a century, the Supreme Court has upheld the fundamental right to end a pregnancy. But for the past three weeks, five justices have shrugged their shoulders while Texas politicians do an end run around the Constitution and impose devastating harm on countless Texans, especially people of color,” said Julia Kaye, a staff attorney at the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. “It is past time for the Supreme Court to step in and right this grave injustice.”

    The high court allowed Texas’ Senate Bill 8 to take effect earlier this month in a 5-4 ruling for which Chief Justice John Roberts joined the three liberals. Though some critics say that move effectively overturned Roe v. Wade — the 1973 case that affirmed the right to abortion — the justices did not consider the constitutionality of the ban in their decision.

    S.B. 8 not only bans abortion after six weeks — before many people know they are pregnant — without exceptions for rape or incest, it also empowers anti-choice vigilantes to enforce the law with the offer of a $10,000 “bounty,” which the U.S. Department of Justice has noted is part of an “unprecedented scheme” to make the law harder to challenge in court.

    Thursday’s filing points out that since the justices’ decision to refrain from blocking the law and let it move through the judicial system, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit Circuit has indicated that its position is “under circuit precedent, federal courts are powerless to preemptively block enforcement of a privately enforced state-law prohibition.”

    The filing further notes that “although the 5th Circuit expedited the appeal, it will not hold argument until December at the earliest,” and asserts quicker action is needed, given that S.B. 8 is already interfering with the healthcare and rights of Texans and residents of neighboring states, whose clinics have seen an increase in demand since the law took effect.

    As CRR president and CEO Nancy Northup put it: “We’re asking the Supreme Court for this expedited appeal because the 5th Circuit has done nothing to change the dire circumstances on the ground in Texas. We need this case to move as quickly as possible.”

    The filing highlights that “already, legislators in other states are taking notice and vowing to adopt copycat laws,” and says there is no “reason to think abortion is the only constitutional right that will be targeted,” echoing widespread warnings about other fundamental rights.

    HuffPost reported that House Bill 167, introduced Wednesday by Florida Rep. Webster Barnaby (R-27), would go even further than S.B. 8 — expanding the window of time in which lawsuits by private citizens could be brought against anyone who “aids or abets” an abortion beyond the six-week limit “from four years under the Texas law to six years in the Sunshine State.”

    At least two cases have already kicked off under Texas’ law; they both target Dr. Alan Braid, a longtime abortion provider in San Antonio who over the weekend publicly admitted to violating S.B. 8, in hopes that the disclosure would help overturn the state’s new ban.

    The threat to reproductive rights posed by the Texas law, copycat legislation, and an upcoming Supreme Court case — a challenge to a Mississippi abortion ban that experts warn could reverse Roe — have collectively elevated calls for the Democrat-controlled Congress to take action.

    Earlier this month, House Speaker Nancy Pelsoi (D-Calif.) announced the chamber will soon vote on the Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA), legislation to codify Roe that is broadly backed by rights advocates.

    The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and 60 other organizations on Thursday sent a letter to lawmakers detailing the devastating impacts of state-level attacks on abortion rights like S.B. 8 and urging them to pass WHPA (H.R. 3755/S. 1975).

    “The Women’s Health Protection Act is an important step in ending these harmful laws,” the groups argued, “and promoting the health, economic security, and well-being of those whom we have forced through law and policy to live at the margins.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Former Democratic presidential candidate and former representative Beto O'Rourke (D-Texas) speaks during a campaign rally on October 17, 2019 in Grand Prairie, Texas.

    Democrat and former representative Beto O’Rourke is planning to run for governor of Texas in 2022, according to political operatives in the state.

    O’Rourke would be a high-profile candidate in the race, which could give Democrats a shot against current Gov. Greg Abbott. O’Rourke has evidently been calling political allies in the state asking for advice and discussing the potential run, Axios first reported.

    As of now, O’Rourke faces a long fight. In a theoretical matchup between O’Rourke and Abbott, a poll for Dallas Morning News shows that about 37 percent would vote for O’Rourke, while 42 percent would vote for the incumbent governor. However, the gap is smaller than earlier this summer, when a July poll found O’Rourke at 33 percent and Abbott at 45 percent.

    The shrinking gap between the two politicians could be due to the fact that Abbott’s favorability ratings have been dropping in the state over the past months.

    A poll released over the weekend found that only 45 percent of Texans polled approve of Abbott’s job performance and 54 percent of poll respondents feel that the state is going in the wrong direction. Another poll from earlier this month, conducted before the state’s abortion ban went into effect, found similar results, with Abbott’s approval rating lower than ever.

    Abbott has taken a sharp pivot right over the past year, prioritizing radical policies like a near-total ban on abortion; massive voter suppression laws, and banning efforts to stem the spread of COVID-19, among other authoritarian laws targeting human rights..

    Under Abbott’s leadership, the state has been experiencing some of the worst COVID infection rates and deaths in the country. As Delta sweeps the U.S.,Texas is nearing all-time high infection rates, overwhelming hospitals to the point where the Republican governor had to call for pausing elective surgeries in the state — though he still refused to ease up on a mask mandate ban that he implemented.

    Meanwhile, O’Rourke faced sharp criticism from progressives throughout his campaign against Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and his presidential run in 2020. Progressives have also panned him for his history of participating in policies that helped to drive out Latinx populations from El Paso, where he served on the city council between 2005 and 2011.

    During his higher-profile runs, O’Rourke was known for his wishy washy platform. When he ran in a crowded field, he failed to distinguish himself with his tepid policies like a plan that would provide Medicare for most, but not all.

    “O’Rourke lacks any platform whatsoever,” wrote The New Republic’s Alex Shephard in 2019. “He has no signature idea, and we know little about his political positions beyond the mushy centrism he exhibited in Congress.”

    It’s possible that O’Rourke may become more forceful in positioning himself against Abbott during this run, with a Democratic policy platform. At the very least, he has been highly critical of Abbott and his handling of the pandemic, calling on the Republican to resign in 2020.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A Texas doctor has revealed that he recently performed an abortion in violation of the state’s new controversial law that prohibits nearly all abortions after roughly six weeks into a pregnancy, arguing that he “had a duty of care to this patient.” Alan Braid, a San Antonio-based physician, wrote in an op-ed published by The Washington Post Saturday that on Sept. 6, just five days after the Texas abortion ban went into effect, that he “provided an abortion to a woman who, though still in her first trimester, was beyond the state’s new limit.”

    The post Texas Doctor Who Provided Abortion In Violation Of New Law appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Protesters rally for reproductive rights in front of the Pennsylvania State Capitol on September 12, 2021, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, after the Supreme Court refused to block a Texas law prohibiting almost all abortions.

    Advocates for reproductive freedom and LGTBQ+ equality on Saturday pointed to a legal brief filed in a U.S. Supreme Court case that could soon overturn Roe v. Wade as a crucial example of the broader goals of those fighting to end abortion rights across the United States.

    “It’s never just been about fetuses. It’s about controlling sex,” tweeted Muhlenberg College assistant professor Jacqueline Antonovich, a historian of health and medicine.

    Both Antonovich and Elie Mystal, The Nation’s justice correspondent, responded to a portion of the brief flagged by New York University School of Law professor Melissa Murray that challenges previous rulings from the country’s highest court on not only abortion but also LGBTQ+ rights.

    “Of course” the so-called “right to life” movement is also coming after cases that established key LGBTQ+ protections, said Mystal, “because it’s never about ‘life’ and always about ‘Christian fundamentalism.’”

    The amicus brief (pdf) that Murray highlighted — co-authored by the architect of a new abortion ban in Texas — urges reversing Roe, the landmark 1973 ruling that affirmed the constitutional right to pre-viability abortions, and the related 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

    The brief also takes aim at Lawrence v. Texas, a 2003 case that overturned homophobic state sodomy laws, and the 2015 equal marriage case Obergefell v. Hodges, suggesting that the court should not “hesitate to write an opinion that leaves those decisions hanging by a thread. Lawrence and Obergefell, while far less hazardous to human life, are just as lawless as Roe.”

    Zack Ford of the progressive group Alliance for Justice said Saturday that “this is hardly surprising. Conservatives know they’ve got the Supreme Court in the palm of their hands and they’ll ask for anything and everything, including the return of sodomy laws. Remember, ALL anti-LGBTQ and anti-choice views stem from the same desire to control bodies.”

    The alarm over the brief — submitted for Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case about a Mississippi abortion ban that the high court is set to hear this term — came exactly one year after the death of liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

    In the wake of Ginsburg’s death, then-President Donald Trump nominated and the GOP-controlled U.S. Senate swiftly confirmed Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s third appointee to the court — creating a supermajority of six right-wing justices.

    The high court’s majority sparked concerns about how justices will rule in the Mississippi case by letting a contested Texas law take effect earlier this month. Just one piece of a historic GOP assault on reproductive rights this year, Texas’ Senate Bill 8 not only bans abortion at six weeks but also empowers anti-choice vigilantes to enforce it — which, as the U.S. Justice Department explained in its lawsuit challenging the measure, is an “unprecedented scheme” intended to make it harder to strike down in court.

    The legal mind behind S.B. 8, Jonathan Mitchell, “has spent the last seven years honing a largely below-the-radar strategy of writing laws deliberately devised to make it much more difficult for the judicial system — particularly the Supreme Court — to thwart them,” according to The New York Times.

    A former Texas solicitor general and clerk to the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Mitchell also co-authored the legal brief attacking Lawrence and Obergefell. His brief for the group Texas Right to Life — just one of several anti-choice filings submitted to the high court in late July — also states that “women can ‘control their reproductive lives’ without access to abortion; they can do so by refraining from sexual intercourse.’”

    As The Guardian reports, the brief adds that “one can imagine a scenario in which a woman has chosen to engage in unprotected (or insufficiently protected) sexual intercourse on the assumption that an abortion will be available to her later. But when this court announces the overruling of Roe, that individual can simply change their behavior in response to the court’s decision if she no longer wants to take the risk of an unwanted pregnancy.”

    While the Biden administration is taking on S.B. 8 in court and on Friday announced another series of actions intended to assist abortion seekers and providers in Texas, both the new ban and mounting concerns about the Mississippi case have provoked calls for the Democrat-controlled Congress to immediately expand the U.S. Supreme Court and codifying Roe.

    Although congressional progressives in April introduced the Judiciary Act of 2021 (H.R. 2584/S. 1141), which would add four more justices to the Supreme Court, the measure has not advanced and its low co-sponsor numbers suggest that will not change during this session.

    As for lawmakers reaffirming abortion rights nationwide, the U.S. House is set to vote on the Women’s Health Protection Act (H.R. 3755/S. 1975) later this month. However, unless the evenly divided Senate abolishes the filibuster, it is unlikely to reach President Joe Biden.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Campaigners fear ban emboldens anti-choice governments as more aggressive opposition, better organised and funded, spreads from US

    The new anti-abortion law in Texas is a “terrifying” reminder of the fragility of hard-won rights, pro-choice activists have said, as they warn of a “more aggressive, much better organised [and] better funded” global opposition movement.

    Pro-choice campaigners have seen several victories in recent years, including in Ireland, Argentina and, most recently, Mexico, where the supreme court ruled last week that criminalising abortion was unconstitutional. Another is hoped for later this month when the tiny enclave of San Marino, landlocked within Italy, holds a highly charged referendum.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Over a hundred people joined Ramarley Graham's family and other organizations and groups for a public action and vigil in conjunction with Beyond The Moments National Day of Action on April 4, 2017.

    This Yom Kippur, a sacred refrain is running back and forth through my head: Texas, what the hell?

    That’s right Texas, what the hell? In just one day, on September 1, the Texas state legislature all but banned abortions statewide, passed the most restrictive voting laws in the U.S., and allowed Texans to carry handguns openly without a license. And if that were not nearly enough, this past June, Texas’s governor signed a bill limiting the teaching of the New York Times’s “1619 Project” and other content deemed by conservatives to be “critical race theory” in public schools.

    Yet, we must also refrain from demonizing Texas as some wholly disconnected outlier. These trends are not at all unique to that state. Indeed Arkansas, Florida, South Carolina and South Dakota are currently preparing abortion bills that mimic the Texas legislation. Meanwhile, there are 20 other states besides Texas that allow permitless handgun carrying. And as of August 26, 27 states have introduced bills or have otherwise taken steps to restrict the teaching of what conservatives see as critical race theory.

    So, while it might feel satisfying for progressives to pile on Texas, it’s probably more accurate to say that this particular state represents a larger phenomenon that has been part of our national culture for some time. For lack of a better term, let’s call it the rage of the white American man.

    White rage is, of course, nothing new, it might be argued that it’s currently entering an era of renewed ferocity. Last month we learned from the Census Bureau that the percentage of white people in the U.S. has actually decreased for the very first time. Since the last report 10 years ago, the overall white population in the U.S. has declined by almost 10 percent. In that same amount of time, the Latinx population grew by 23 percent, the Asian population increased by over 35 percent and the Black population grew by almost 6 percent.

    When you consider that the United States was built on a foundation of white supremacy — that is, by white men, for white men — it’s not difficult to grasp the impact of news such as this. While the country’s percentage of white people may be declining, white supremacists surely won’t go away quietly. We know from history that a dying beast can still do a considerable amount of damage on the way down. Indeed, this is precisely what we’re seeing unfold in Texas and around the country: the anger of white supremacist, misogynist Americans who are increasingly galled by what their country is becoming.

    And they are galled. They’re galled by the fact that the U.S. actually had a Black president for eight years. They’re galled that there’s a new national reckoning going on over the legacy of slavery and structural racism in our country. They’re galled by the increased national attention being paid to police violence against Black people and by a Black Lives Matter movement that mobilized the largest mass protests in U.S. history last summer. They are galled every time another statue of a Confederate is toppled in a Southern state, as was the case at the Virginia statehouse last week.

    And it doesn’t stop there. They’re also galled when women, nonbinary and trans people seek power over their own bodies — and really, whenever they seek more power in general. They’re galled by the rising movement for reproductive justice. They’re galled that there are now a record number of women serving in Congress, including a Palestinian American and a hijab-wearing former refugee from Somalia. They’re galled by the #MeToo movement, which is removing sexually violent men from positions of power. Last November, they were particularly galled when a powerful voting rights organizing effort largely led by Black women helped turn Georgia blue in both the presidential and congressional elections.

    Of course, white and misogynist anger over voting rights in this country didn’t begin last year. It surged in 1870, when the 15th Amendment technically gave Black men the right to vote. It surged in 1920, when the 19th Amendment technically gave women the right to vote. And it surged again in 1965, when the Voting Rights Act went into effect. Even as we celebrate these landmark legislative events, we can’t look away from the immense backlash and rage they engendered — and continue to engender — throughout the U.S., which makes it all the more crucial that we keep fighting for real universal enfranchisement. (It’s worth noting that truly universal enfranchisement would also include populations that don’t yet have the vote, such as undocumented people and most people who are incarcerated in prisons.)

    As we contemplate how to respond to the events transpiring in Texas and around the country, it’s immensely important for us to understand the historical power of white rage. This phenomenon has been part of U.S. national culture since this country’s founding on stolen land, and the colonial mass murder of Indigenous people. The current brand of self-righteous white rage is reminiscent of the racist backlash that played out during Reconstruction. We shouldn’t be surprised by the current devastating setbacks to public policy; on the contrary, we should expect them.

    The staying power of white supremacist anger in this country sometimes reminds me of a certain Biblical trope. Readers of the Hebrew Bible are, of course, familiar with the story of creation in Genesis 1, in which an omnipotent God creates light out of darkness and separates the primordial waters of chaos. It’s a satisfying, deeply aspirational myth that expresses a certain vision of the world as it should be: a neat and tidy process by which the world moves from chaos to greater order and progress.

    However, scholars have pointed out that there is another creation story embedded in the Bible, influenced by epic stories from the Ancient Near East that portray a battle between the gods and powerful sea monsters that represent the primordial forces of chaos. Biblical books, such as the Psalms, Job and Isaiah describe God’s battle with a mighty sea monster named Leviathan, among others. Unlike the orderly movement toward progress that we read about in Genesis 1, this other narrative portrays creation as an ongoing and even desperate struggle. And while God generally gets the upper hand, it’s not at all clear in the Bible that the primordial sea monster is ever completely vanquished.

    It sometimes occurs to me that our conventional, liberal view of history reflects a “Genesis 1 mindset,” i.e., an orderly movement toward greater progress, proceeding neatly from victory to victory. And while these landmark moments certainly represent political progress, they do not fundamentally change the foundational truth of this country. To put it differently, we too often forget that the sea monster is never fully vanquished. Yes, victories should be celebrated. But even more than that, they must also be protected.

    If we were ever sanguine about the threat of white supremacist resentment in this country, we should now have no doubt that it still exists, after the past four years of Trump (which literally culminated in an armed insurrection on the U.S. Capitol). This rage is real and it is mobilizing in truly frightening ways. It’s no coincidence that among the bills passed in Texas earlier this month was legislation loosening restrictions on gun carry laws. Indeed, the dramatic spike in gun ownership and the erosion of gun control measures around the country should make it clear to us that the threat of white nationalism is deadly serious.

    So where do we go from here? How do we resist such fierce and unrelenting rage? Perhaps the first step is to remember that white resentment is fueled by fear — and in truth, white supremacists have genuine cause to be fearful. They are afraid because they know full well that there are more of us than there are of them — and our numbers are growing. We should never forget that while fear may be one of their primary motivations, it’s also a sign of their fundamental weakness.

    White nationalism is essentially a reactionary movement; that is to say, it has historically reacted to changes that genuinely threaten its power and hegemony in this country. But even though by definition, these reactionaries have been playing defense throughout American history, the liberal response to white supremacy has been to resist the prospect of a strong offense as “too much,” “too radical,” or “too extreme.” White liberals often distance themselves from revolutionary people-of-color-led movements in this way, and those of us who are white must consciously resist this form of distancing, because this phenomenon is itself a form of white supremacy preservation. During the years of the civil rights movement — just as we’re seeing today — many white liberal leaders would publicly criticize movement tactics they felt were too radical or extreme.

    This is precisely what Martin Luther King Jr. was addressing when he so memorably wrote from a Birmingham jail, “the question is not whether we will be extremist, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate, or will we be extremists for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice, or will we be extremists for the cause of justice?” The Black playwright Lorraine Hansberry put it succinctly in a 1964 speech entitled “The Black Revolution and the White Backlash,” saying, “We have to find some way to encourage the white liberal to stop being a liberal and become an American radical.”

    In other words, as long as white supremacy is baked into the very systems that govern our country, we can ill afford to play defense. If anyone has any doubts, consider this: Two months before the census reported the decrease in the white population in this country, the Reflective Democracy Campaign released a report that demonstrated how radically white minority rule pervades politics across the U.S. Despite the recent electoral gains for women and people of color, white men represent 30 percent of the population but 62 percent of state and national officeholders. By contrast, women and people of color constitute 51 percent and 40 percent of the U.S. population respectively, but represent just 31 percent and 13 percent of officeholders.

    When the Reflective Democracy Campaign released these findings, its director, Brenda Choresi Carter, put it very well: We have “a political system in general that is not built to include new voices and perspectives. It’s a system built to protect the people and the interests already represented in it. It’s like all systems. It’s built to protect the status quo.”

    As I read those words, I can’t help but ask: Isn’t challenging status-quo systems what Yom Kippur is ultimately all about? Every year at this season, those of us who observe this holiday are commanded to take a hard, unflinching look at the status quo, openly admit what needs changing, and commit to the hard work it will take to transform it. It’s an inherently radical concept: to proclaim every year that the status quo is unacceptable and that nothing short of genuine intervention will do. If our Yom Kippur prayers are to mean anything at all, we must be prepared to act upon this radical idea.

    Organizers and activists working to intervene in our racist, inequitable systems are already lighting a path toward a transformed world. We must take our cue from them. Because in the end, when we fight for voting rights, reproductive justice, racial justice, economic equity, or any other issue, we’re not only advocating for specific causes that have suffered setbacks — we’re fighting to transform systems that are fundamentally unjust.

    So when we sound the shofar with a long blast at the end of Yom Kippur, let’s not only regard it as the conclusion to this season. Let’s consider it a call to action for transformation in the year ahead. And when the inevitable setbacks occur, let us not respond with surprise or dismay; rather, let’s remind each other that setbacks and backlashes are a sign of their fear, not their strength. Let us never forget that there are more of us than there are of them — and if we see fit to summon our strength, we can indeed create the world we know is possible.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The new Texas ban on abortion, which was upheld by the United States Supreme Court, effectively enables vigilante justice, reports Barry Sheppard.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • An activist speaks into a megaphone on the steps of the Supreme Court of the United States

    A state defies a landmark decision by the Supreme Court and enacts legislation that effectively bans a hotly contested civil right. The state designed the legislation to evade the federal courts’ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court hears the case and, in a unanimous opinion, blocks the state’s actions. Each justice signs their name to the beginning of the opinion and they condemn the state’s attempt to “nullify” the Court’s landmark decision through “evasive schemes.”

    That’s what should have happened to Texas and SB 8, which defied Roe v. Wade by effectively banning all abortions after about six weeks into a pregnancy. Instead, the Supreme Court let SB 8 “evade federal judicial scrutiny,” as Justice Sonia Sotomayor put it in her dissent. The Court went in the opposite direction of the opening narrative, which is from the civil rights era, when it struck down state laws undermining desegregation and Brown v. Board of Education. Those rulings established the federal courts as the legitimate enforcers of constitutional and civil rights for the last 60 years.

    But the Supreme Court has now decided to let a state openly defy the federal court system. And if the “supreme” body of an institution gives up on asserting its authority, then we have to ask whether we should continue trusting that institution. The common sense of going to federal court when your rights are violated or donating to a legal organization to fight the bad guys may not make sense anymore.

    Maybe the fight to reform and relegitimize the federal courts really is worth it, but we can’t solely rely on legal strategies to defend our rights. We have to question these strategies if the conservative justices — a few people in black robes — can discard a crucial civil rights system with such indifference. Our best strategies don’t rely on top-down institutions, but on social movements and grassroots and working-class institutions, such as unions. Either way, we can’t stick around just because that’s where legal advocates have spent the last two generations or because of a misguided belief that “the law” will eventually be just. The law, like any other institution in our society, is malleable and rarely a level playing field.

    The federal courts rose with the civil rights movement and may now fall with the end of Roe. Rather than stand lopsided, we have to start fighting on our own terms.

    Supreme Court Ruling Has Opened the Floodgates

    Texas designed SB 8 to get around the way federal courts normally stop unconstitutional state laws, including other six-week bans on abortion: They order state officials to not enforce the law. However, SB 8 gives enforcement powers not to state officials, but to private citizens (and many anti-abortion “vigilantes” will take up that mantle). The law allows them to sue and win, at minimum, $10,000 in “damages” from anyone who “aids or abets” a banned abortion. And since the federal courts have no state official to order around, the logic goes, they can’t block the law as unconstitutional until someone actually tests it out by suing.

    But the damage will already be done. Abortion providers in Texas are closing and reducing services. Up until now, federal courts had blocked these flagrantly unconstitutional laws before they went into effect. That approach softened the blow on abortion providers by reducing their legal risk. It was how this process was “supposed” to work. A state restricts a civil right, civil society groups ask legal organizations for help, the lawyers go to federal court and the court stops the law. It wasn’t perfect, and states were still bringing death by a thousand cuts to abortion providers.

    The Supreme Court has now opened the floodgates. Even the conservative justices couldn’t deny there were “serious questions regarding the constitutionality of the Texas law.” But their opinion took SB 8’s scheme at face value, saying its “complex and novel” procedures — lawsuits by private citizens — had to play out first. The Court is inviting states to challenge the legitimacy of civil rights enforcement in federal courts. States will pass all kinds of unconstitutional laws designed to evade judicial review. Federal courts may eventually patch up the specific jurisdictional hole that Texas used, but there will be others.

    The Civil Rights Era of the Federal Courts

    This is how states resisted desegregation after Brown — the federal courts won, and won big. After the “Little Rock Nine” and a federal troop occupation began integrating schools in Arkansas’s capital city in 1957, the state legislature and governor passed laws that did not explicitly challenge Brown but still, as the Supreme Court justices at the time put it, “reflect[ed] their own determination to resist this Court’s decision.” One such law, eerily similar to SB 8, gave money to school districts to attack integration in court. And the school district officials, not those actually behind these legislative schemes, were the only ones whom civil rights activists could sue.

    The Supreme Court struck down the laws despite this procedural trickery — and in some ways, because of it. Arkansas essentially challenged the legitimacy of the federal courts, and the justices had to beat that back. That’s why they, for the only time in history, all signed their names to the beginning of the opinion. The state’s “evasive scheme” of using school district officials as a legal decoy could not hide the fact that “vindication” of a constitutional right “was rendered difficult or impossible by the actions of other state officials.” The unconstitutional laws had to go, and the justices unanimously signaled the federal courts’ power over the states.

    The Supreme Court’s assertion of its own authority boosted the institutional legitimacy of the federal courts, and it spawned the world of federal civil rights litigation that we know today. It’s an industry where hundreds of legal organizations spend billions of dollars every year to advance civil rights. And it became the commonsense place to go to fight tyranny. When Trump won the 2016 election, the ACLU threatened him with its “full firepower” and “staff of litigators and activists in every state … ready to fight against any encroachment on our cherished freedom and rights.” Donations soared.

    The Limits of the Federal Courts and the Law

    But is this the system we really want to rely on? A system whose legitimacy depends on pretenses like nine people in black robes signing their names on a piece of paper? A system where our rights rise or fall based on procedural technicalities only understood by the lawyers who create them? For people who believe in “the law,” maybe that checks out. But for the rest of us, who see politicians and the rich flout every rule while the courts throw poor and oppressed people in prison, it’s time to take this latest hint from the Supreme Court and move on.

    That doesn’t mean lawyers (like yours truly) and our many great legal organizations have no role to play. And even the conservative justices in control of the Supreme Court have not totally abdicated the idea of civil rights. It was, after all, Justice Neil Gorsuch who wrote the Bostock v. Clayton County opinion, which extended Title VII protections to gay and trans people. We can and should use the federal courts, state courts, and whatever other legal avenues are out there to help people and push back against tyranny. And we should reform those institutions to make them more just.

    But the law is a means, not an end. It’s useful for some things, and not for others. In particular, the past two generations of federal civil rights litigation have not panned out as a way to build power at the grassroots. To the contrary, institutions designed to build grassroots power have suffered from overreliance on lawyers and judicial intervention.

    In unions, for example, lawyers started negotiating the contracts and trying to enforce them in court, rather than workers sitting at the table and using the strike tool as leverage. Unions told workers to take their disputes not to their co-workers and fellow union members, but to a legalistic grievance process where they were basically a spectator. Today, unions have resurged not because of smart lawyers, but through rank-and-file organizing and strike activity that have energized the communities around them.

    Even where we see victories in top-down institutions — such as Mexico’s Supreme Court’s decriminalization of abortion — the underlying role of social movements is clear. Argentina’s “green wave,” a women-led movement of hundreds of thousands, won the right to abortion through legislation less than a year ago. That wave swept into Mexico and will be necessary to support this fledgling right against challenges on new institutional battlefields in both countries. There are fights to come over funding, accessibility, training and cultural competence, and religious exemptions.

    Meanwhile, we are sliding backwards in the United States. Why are we facing the impending fall of Roe when we should be gaining ground by repealing the Hyde Amendment, which bans federal funding for abortion, and passing Medicare for All? The unavoidable answer is that our strategies are not working. Frustrating as it may be to watch the Supreme Court delegitimize itself, the next generation of change needs a broader, more grassroots horizon.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

    Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) has panned Texas Gov. Greg Abbott for his disingenuous claims about preventing sexual assault made while defending the state’s dangerous abortion ban this week.

    As Texas’s abortion ban has faced fierce criticism from a multitude of angles over the past weeks, Abbott has doubled down on a dubious defense: he will supposedly work to end sexual assault in the state by “eliminat[ing] all rapists,” incarcerating them instead.

    Aside from the obvious paradox of this statement — how could the government punish an assailant before they assault someone? — critics have pointed out that the sentiment isn’t actually genuine. Abbott doesn’t want to end sexual assault, critics say, and if he did, he would take actual steps to address rape culture.

    “If Gov. Abbott is as ‘anti-rape’ as he claims, why doesn’t he just lead the Texas state legislature to pass a law for $10k bounties on people who engage in or aid sexual assault?” wrote Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter — a likely dig at the “bounty hunter” aspect of the new anti-abortion law the governor just signed. “Or is he opposed to that because it’s a slippery slope of vigilantism where men could be unjustly targeted?”

    The so-called “bounty hunter” system that allows any private citizen to sue anyone who aids a person in getting an abortion and win a reward of $10,000 or more is exceptionally cruel, as critics have pointed out. It not only creates a massive chilling effect on abortion providers in the state, but also encourages harassment and sets a dangerous precedent of vigilantism, as Ocasio-Cortez pointed out.

    Bounty hunting as a practice has a grim, dark history in the U.S., having been used to abduct Black people into slavery and, in modern times, used to terrorize people who cannot afford to pay off bail bonds. Companies that bounty hunt make millions while causing untold suffering to their targets and their families.

    As critics of the abortion ban have pointed out, Texas’s abortion ban will likely disproportionately affect non-white, LGBTQ and poor people, who may lack the resources to travel out of state to obtain an abortion. The disproportionate effect of the law hearkens back, then, to bounty hunting’s racist and discriminatory roots.

    Such a system for enforcing any law only enhances the carceral state. Though the Texas law doesn’t directly incriminate abortion providers or people who aid someone seeking an abortion, it creates punitive measures for these individuals. It adds to, rather than eliminates, rape culture, which is one of the reasons a person may seek an abortion in the first place.

    Abortions should not be subject to punitive measures to begin with, and the negative stigma around what is clearly a medical procedure created by anti-choice groups is part of what has led the U.S. down this sordid path. The Texas abortion ban is extremely restrictive, not allowing even victims of rape or incest to be exempted from the law, which makes it particularly inhumane. Not that there should be any shame — or for that matter, a prohibitive law — associated with seeking an abortion for any reason in the first place, abortion rights activists point out.

    “Still thinking about how Gov. Abbott’s message to survivors terrified of the bounties now on their heads is ‘I will end rape.’ No, he won’t. He and the GOP just gave abusers & coercive partners a powerful new tool to intimidate victims,” wrote Ocasio-Cortez on Thursday. “These GOP laws HELP abusers, not stop them.”

    “By allowing any person to financially destroy pregnant people on a whim, they knowingly handed over the keys of manipulation & control to people most likely to use it,” she continued. “Don’t let them feign ignorance about this. They know exactly what they’re doing. This is about fear & control.”

    The New York lawmaker also wrote that the real reason Republicans are seeking to outlaw abortion is their desire to take away people’s body autonomy.

    “Sexual assault is an abuse of power that attempts to seize sexual control over another person’s body,” wrote Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter. “Anti-choice laws are also an abuse of power that attempts to seize sexual control over people’s bodies en masse. And that’s one way rape culture informs anti-choice legislation.”

    “It’s not a coincidence that Texas is where GOP are testing new ways to retake sexual control via legislation,” Ocasio-Cortez continued. “Texas had ‘anti-sodomy’ laws in place until 2003 (!) that made non-PIV sex illegal until the Supreme Court overturned it on the basis of Roe v. Wade’s right to privacy.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • A woman looks at options for the mifepristone abortion pill on May 8, 2020, in Arlington, Virginia, after her home state of Texas temporarily banned abortions in March 2020. Having split with her boyfriend, she decided to buy pills on the internet and perform her own abortion at home.

    As Texas’s remaining 15 abortion clinics grapple with the fallout of last week’s implementation of the nation’s most restrictive anti-abortion law, which now allows private citizens to sue anyone who “aids or abets” a person seeking an abortion after six weeks, at least three facilities in San Antonio have stopped offering the procedure to avoid lawsuits.

    With access to the procedure shrinking rapidly even for Texans under six weeks, pregnant people without the ability or resources to travel out of state, especially undocumented Texans, rural Texans and/or Texans of color, are already turning to self-managed methods. That doesn’t necessarily mean the kinds of desperate measures pregnant people have traditionally turned to in the past when medical abortions were illegal, although it doesn’t rule them out either. Most commonly, self-managed abortion has come to look like women obtaining abortion-inducing pills from online telemedicine sites and online pharmacies.

    After decades of Republican-backed abortion restrictions, low-income and rural Texans were already turning to self-managed abortions as the number of licensed clinics in the state dwindled from 41 in 2008 to only 15 by 2020. In that time, abortion-inducing pills quickly became the most common method to terminate early pregnancies. According to the reproductive rights research organization Guttmacher Institute, 60 percent of early-term abortion-seekers elect to take a pill over having surgery.

    But what many may have missed amid the flood of news coverage of the state’s harsh six-week abortion ban, Senate Bill 8 (SB 8), is that the state also passed a separate bill, Senate Bill 4 (SB 4), specifically targeting medication abortion. SB 4 creates a state jail felony offense for providers who prescribe medication abortions after seven weeks of pregnancy, effectively double banning medication-induced abortions in the state. The law also bans abortion-inducing pills from being mailed in Texas.

    If you’re wondering how abortions could be banned at both six weeks and seven weeks, you’re not alone. Kamyon Connor, who is executive director of the Texas Equal Access (TEA) Fund, which provides abortion funding to low-income people in Texas, tells Truthout that the new seven-week abortion pill ban, while compounding the harms of the six-week abortion ban, is also somewhat in conflict with it. “It allows for more than six weeks’ worth of abortion, which is weird. So already, the state is contradicting itself in some ways by saying, ‘At seven weeks it’s still OK to do, but actually it’s not because of this other thing,’” Connor says.

    But the contradictions don’t lessen the bills’ threats. The combined impacts of the two laws have left the state’s most marginalized people to seek out abortion-inducing pills on their own, and Texas abortion facilities, support networks and reproductive rights advocates say they are still struggling to provide answers.

    “People were already self-managing their abortions under the watchful eye of an abortion provider, something that’s completely safe for folks to do in the privacy of their own homes,” says Connor. “What the state is trying to do is intimidate folks who might turn to self-managed abortion care outside of the realm of traditional, clinic-based, provider-managed care for their abortions because they’re unable to access them [under SB 8] in our state.”

    The TEA Fund is now mostly dedicating its support to assisting low-income Texans of color in traveling out of state for abortions, and Connor says the Fund has not yet received inquiries from clients or potential clients about how to pursue self-managed abortion or how to seek abortion pills outside clinic-based supervision. In fact, most of the Fund’s referrals come directly from the clinics themselves.

    But it’s not just that the organization isn’t specifically receiving those inquiries; the Fund’s help line has seen an overall drop in call volumes since SB 8’s implementation last Wednesday. Connor says that decrease has been typical in the immediate aftermath of prior state-legislated abortion restrictions, such as Gov. Greg Abbott’s executive order at the onset of the pandemic, which banned abortions as a “medically unnecessary” procedure. (That order was later struck down by courts.) “There’s an adjustment period of where people are trying to figure it out,” Connor says.

    If someone were to specifically inquire about self-managed abortion, the Fund’s staff and volunteers would try to redirect them by providing resources and support to find the person care out of state instead, Connor says. The impacts of both bills are something Connor says the Fund has been preparing to handle for months by retraining staff and strengthening connections to regional, out-of-state clinics, as well as beefing up safety and security protocols.

    “Abortion funds have this unique muscle developed by having relationships with clinics outside of the state already because our clients have always had to leave the state due to harsh restrictions here, but also because we understand that people should be able to access abortion care however they want,” Connor tells Truthout.

    Like SB 8, even if SB 4 is eventually overturned in the court system — an increasingly uncertain outcome amid the Trump-installed, conservative-majority Supreme Court’s refusal to block SB 8 from going into effect and soon weighing a Mississippi challenge to Roe v. Wade — barriers to medication abortion would remain. This is because of the way Texas regulated the procedure even prior to the passage of SB 4: Even as the COVID-19 Delta variant slams intensive care units in the state’s largest cities, Texas continues to prohibit appointments to obtain medication abortion via telemedicine, forcing women to see providers in person in order to be able to access abortion-inducing pills.

    SB 4’s new restrictions do not align with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) standards. The agency approved mifepristone in the U.S. for nonsurgical abortion in 2000, and the FDA’s 2016 guidelines allow practitioners to provide mifepristone and misoprostol, the two-drug combination prescribed for medication abortions, up to 10 weeks’ gestation.

    The Texas Medical Association has called the Texas Legislature’s passage of two anti-abortion bills “unconstitutional” and an interference with the fundamental patient-physician relationship, while condemning SB 4 for containing “language that criminalizes the practice of medicine.”

    “FDA standards dictate one thing, but apparently our Texas legislators feel it is upon their power to contradict medical expertise and limit medication abortion to seven weeks,” says Nancy Cárdenas Peña, who is Texas director of policy and advocacy the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice. “So we’ll have our hands full with SB 8, fighting against that legislation in courts, but we would still have yet another fight on SB 4, because while these attacks are connected, the fights against them can look a little different.”

    The fight against SB 4, Cárdenas Peña says, must be more focused on destigmatizing conversations around what self-managed abortion really looks like in the modern era. More often than not — with the proper information, resources and guidance — self-managed abortions are completely safe and preferable for many people, especially those in rural areas who may have to travel hours just to see a provider, and undocumented people in border regions who may be unable to cross immigration checkpoints.

    That latter issue is one Cárdenas Peña says must be lifted up in the fight against both SB 4 and SB 8. “The intersection of immigration and reproductive health care is more close together than people realize. In areas like the Rio Grande Valley, we have internal immigration checkpoints that prevent people from leaving, so this conversation about, ‘We’re just going to go to another state for abortion care,’ is not the same for everyone,” she tells Truthout. “So folks who are undocumented and do not have papers cannot cross these checkpoints and access health care anywhere else and are therefore subject to the state laws that are in place.”

    The criminalization efforts we see in Texas’s new anti-abortion laws are similar to tactics that have long been deployed against undocumented people, Cárdenas Peña points out. Anti-abortion hotlines and websites that encourage people to report on those seeking abortion access in Texas mirror Immigration and Customs Enforcement tip lines that collect reports on undocumented people and those aiding and housing them. “So in the same essence that immigration hotlines seek for loved ones to report other people, we see the rise of ‘whistleblower’ websites within the abortion movement asking people to report on each other and trying to attain this $10,000 bounty, which just a reminder, is the floor, not the ceiling … that people can ask for in court,” Cárdenas Peña says.

    The intersection between abortion travel and immigration is especially important to emphasize amid reproductive rights advocates’ bittersweet celebration of the Mexican Supreme Court’s Tuesday ruling that punishing women for abortion is unconstitutional. The precedent-setting decision annuls several provisions of a law passed by a northern Mexican state along the Texas border. It has immediate implications for Texas’s SB 8 and SB 4 laws, too.

    Mexico’s decision opens another option for Texans seeking legal abortions, both surgical and medication-induced. Even before the passage of SB 4, women in South Texas frequently crossed the border to go to Mexican pharmacies to buy misoprostol. With SB 4 limiting Texans’ ability to obtain both mifepristone and misoprostol beyond seven weeks in the U.S., Mexico is poised to see an explosion in abortion-seekers crossing the border — that is, among people with the ability to cross the border in the first place.

    Texas’s most marginalized people, however, will be stuck with the impacts of its abortions bans, something reproductive rights advocates say needs remain central in the struggle for reproductive justice.

    “These are direct attacks on Black folks, queer, trans people, Indigenous folks, migrants and immigrants along our borders,” the TEA Fund’s Connor says. “This is also a direct attack upon young folks, who often try to seek this kind of [self-managed] care — specifically for our young people who don’t necessarily have supportive guardians in their lives or any kind of parental figures.”

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • An abortion protester holds up a green bandana

    A unanimous opinion from Mexico’s supreme court has found that laws in the country that impose prison sentences on individuals for attaining an abortion are inconsistent with the country’s constitution, a ruling that effectively decriminalizes the practice throughout the nation.

    Although the practice won’t be immediately legalized in the 28 states that currently have laws criminalizing it, an “outline” on how those states will have to update those laws or how judges within them will have to rule on future cases will likely come about soon, former supreme court justice Diego Valadés said.

    Just four federal zones in Mexico — Oaxaca, Veracruz, Hidalgo and Mexico City — had recognized abortion rights prior to Tuesday’s ruling.

    The justices issued a 10-0 decision in favor of removing criminal sanctions for abortion in the northern state of Coahuila, where a person could be imprisoned for up to three years for getting an abortion.

    Under Mexican law, any supreme court ruling that includes more than eight justices siding with a decision can be applied to the rest of the country as well. Since 10 justices ruled in favor of the decision decriminalizing abortion, it will create “obligatory criteria for all of the country’s judges” beyond Coahuila to rule on similar cases throughout the country, said court President Arturo Zaldívar.

    Women’s rights proponents praised the ruling as moving Mexico and other Latin American countries forward.

    “This will not only have an impact in Mexico; it will set the agenda for the entire Latin American region,” said Melissa Ayala, litigation coordinator at GIRE, a Mexican feminist organization.

    The ruling comes as a movement for women’s rights is growing in the country, with women frequently taking to the streets to demand greater political rights and recognized freedoms.

    It also comes just days after Texas, which is directly across the U.S.-Mexico border from Coahuila, enacted new, harsher restrictions on abortions, forbidding the practice by allowing anyone to sue for up to $10,000 any abortion care provider or any individual who helps a person obtain an abortion after six weeks of pregnancy.

    The United States Supreme Court, by a 5-4 decision, refused to place a hold on the Texas law, with conservative bloc justices apparently siding with anti-abortion lawmakers in the Lone Star State. The court’s conservative majority sidled out of making a decision by saying that an aggrieved party being sued under the law would have to bring a countersuit in order for the court to consider the issue of the law’s constitutionality.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • The Portland, Oregon, city council will vote this Wednesday on a resolution that would ban city employees’ official travel to Texas and prevent any trade from occurring with that state, in response to that state’s recently imposed ban on abortions beyond the sixth week of pregnancy.

    The Texas law allows residents to sue other individuals, including abortion providers, if they help a person to procure an abortion in the state, for amounts of up to $10,000 per instance. Earlier this month, the conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court refused to block implementation of the law, accepting a controversial legal argument that suggests it can remain in place until an individual affected by the law in Texas files a counter lawsuit against someone trying to sue them.

    Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler said he and the city council would pass an ordinance banning city expenditures from reaching the state of Texas by way of trade because of that state’s newly enacted abortion ban. Such a measure, if it passes, would ban business with the state until it “withdraws its unconstitutional ban on abortion or until it is overturned in court,” the mayor’s office said in a press release.

    Wheeler hopes that other communities across the country will impose similar bans on Texas in order to put financial pressure on lawmakers there to change the law.

    “We urge other leaders and elected bodies around the nation to join us in condemning the actions of the Texas state government,” the press release added.

    Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R) responded to news of Portland’s proposed boycott of the state by calling the city’s leaders “depraved,” and describing the motion as “a complete joke.”

    “A boycott will hurt them, not us. Texas’ economy is stronger than ever,” Patrick added.

    However, aside from the possibility of other cities, counties and municipal governments taking action against Texas, the state may face other economic fallouts over its abortion ban. A recent survey suggested that the state may face a “brain drain” of new talent in its workforce due to the new restrictions on reproductive rights.

    The poll, conducted by PerryUndem, found that two-thirds (66 percent) of college-educated workers wouldn’t relocate for a job if it’s in a state that prohibits abortions after the sixth week of pregnancy. Half of the respondents said they’d consider moving out of a state that did so if they were already living there.

    Americans overall are opposed to the type of bans that Texas recently implemented. An NBC News Survey from last month found that 54 percent of Americans believe abortion should be legal always or most of the time, while only 34 percent said it should be illegal in most cases but allowed in some circumstances, such as rape or incest. (The Texas law, however, is so restrictive that it doesn’t even allow for those exceptions). Only 8 percent of respondents in that poll said abortion should be banned in all circumstances.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Texas Governor Greg Abbott speaks during a press conference on June 8, 2021 in Austin, Texas.

    Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s approval rating has dropped over the past months as he has led Republicans in the state to pursue and pass a number of restrictive and discriminatory laws over the summer.

    Polling done just before the abortion ban in the state took effect by the Texas Politics Project, run by the University of Texas at Austin, finds that Abbott’s approval rating went from a net even 44 percent approval and disaspproval in June, to a net negative in the group’s most recent poll. Now, 41 percent of people polled approve of the GOP governor’s job performance, while 50 percent disapprove.

    Abbot’s approval rating dropped with people across the partisan spectrum: from 8 percent to 6 percent among Democrats, 77 percent to 73 percent among Republicans and 41 percent to 30 percent among independents. According to the Texas Politics Project, Abbott’s approval rating is now the lowest it has been since he took office in 2015.

    Overall, the poll found that a majority of those polled think that Texas is going in the wrong direction. While only 35 percent of those polled believe the state is going in the right direction, 52 percent believe it’s on the wrong track.

    Part of the reason for Abbott’s declining approval rating and the pessimism over the state’s direction may be due to the pandemic, said the executive director of the Texas Politics Project. “This is really an eye-opener for us,” Jim Henson told KXAN.

    The poll found that Texans generally disapprove of Abbott’s handling of the pandemic, with his approval ratings on the issue reaching the lowest levels since the beginning of the pandemic in April 2020. Only 39 percent of those polled approved of how Abbott has handled the COVID pandemic in his state, while 53 percent disapproved.

    Over the past months, the Delta variant of COVID-19 has surged across Texas. Case rates in Texas and across the country appear to be flattening, but the state has some of the highest rates for infections and deaths. Texas also has a relatively low vaccination rate, with only 48 percent of adults fully vaccinated to date.

    Part of the reason for the high case counts, especially in recent weeks, is Abbott’s insistence in not taking the necessary measures to stop the spread of the virus. In fact, he has moved against the recommendations of public health experts and ordered a ban on mask mandates from government entities, which has almost certainly contributed to a surge in cases among children as schools have returned to in-person classes.

    The mask mandate ban is also unpopular, according to the Texas Politics Project poll. Forty-one percent of those polled support it, while 45 percent are opposed.

    Though the poll was conducted before the state’s abortion ban went into effect, Texas Republicans have been working for months to suppress voters and implement other radical right-wing measures across the state.

    Republicans’ recent voter suppression bill, for instance, makes it harder for Black and brown people and people with disabilities to vote. The GOP has also been working on a number of bigoted anti-trans laws aimed at making it harder for transgender children and adults to survive in the state.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.