Human Rights

Arizona Right to Life is working to convince the state Supreme Court that, if voters favor an abortion rights initiative this fall, the only people who will stand in the way of the procedure are “abortionists who profit from a determination that leads to abortion.”

The anti-abortion organization argued as much in a brief filed to Arizona’s highest court on Friday afternoon.

If voters approve Proposition 139 in November, it would enshrine in the Arizona Constitution the right to an abortion up to the point of fetal viability, generally accepted to be around 24 weeks of pregnancy. Exceptions to that limit would be allowed if a health care provider determined it was necessary to preserve a patient’s life, physical or mental health.

Arizona Right to Life lost its lawsuit challenging the measure’s place on the ballot in a trial court, but the state’s highest court has yet to make a decision in the appeal.

The anti-abortion group claimed that the summary of the Arizona Abortion Access Act, which was shown to the more than 800,000 supporters who signed petitions to get it on the ballot, was misleading, and for that reason it should be barred from the ballot this fall.

On Monday, the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office confirmed that around 570,000 of those signatures were valid, significantly more than enough to make it onto the ballot.

In the appeal, Arizona Right to Life argued that the summary shown to those who signed the petition was misleading because it contained the phrase “health care provider” while the full text of the act refers to the “treating health care provider” when describing who has the authority to determine that an abortion is necessary beyond fetal viability.

The anti-abortion group argued that the omission of the word “treating” in the summary led petition signers to believe that someone other than an abortion provider would be making the decision.

The trial court judge did not agree.

Other groups and elected officials rallied to defend the abortion rights measure in court on Friday, too. In a joint filing, Save our Schools Arizona and the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center claimed that, if the court buys the argument that the omission of “a minor adjective” means the description is impermissibly misleading, the justices would make the standard “so burdensome and unattainable that no initiative could survive” legal review.

SOS Arizona is a public school advocacy organization and the BISC is a nonprofit that provides information to advocacy groups about the initiative process.

“The microscopic detail (Arizona Right to Life) demands would render compliance impossible and would suffocate the right to initiative,” an attorney for the two groups, Daniel Adelman, wrote in the friend of the court filing.

Adelman also called into question Arizona Right to Life’s argument that the summary should have included details about the Abortion Access Act’s possible impact on existing abortion regulations.

State law currently bans the procedure after 15 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions only to save the life of the mother.

“No proponent could predict and summarize which past and future laws would survive in the span of 200 words, while simultaneously explaining the measure’s actual provisions,” Adelman wrote. “And the attempt to engage in such an exercise could result in a misleading description should a court disagree with how the proponents applied the test to any particular regulation.”

State law requires that summaries shown to potential petition signers include all of the principal provisions of the ballot measure, but not its possible impacts on existing law, Adelman pointed out.

But Arizona Right to Life argued in its Friday filing that one of the principal provisions of the act was to demolish the current “objective medical examination” standard for determining if an abortion was warranted, to be replaced by the “good faith judgment” of the treating health care provider.

“The voters are — unbeknownst to them — being asked to allow medical determinations about abortion made solely on the ‘good faith’ decision of abortionists who profit from a determination that leads to abortion,” wrote Jennifer Wright, an attorney for Right to Life.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine and the Society of Family Planning countered those claims in their own court filing in support of the Arizona Abortion Access Act.

Karin Aldama, an attorney for the medical societies and abortion research group, wrote that Arizona Right to Life’s allegations about abortion providers lacked evidence and were “ungrounded in the realities of medical care and ethics.”

“Bedrock principles of medical ethics require that all clinicians, irrespective of the type of care they provide, base their medical judgments on the ‘welfare of the patient,’ not personal gain,” Aldama wrote.

The medical societies also alleged that the anti-abortion advocacy group was wrongfully attempting to convince the court that clinicians who provide abortions were governed by a different code of ethics than other health care providers.

“Plaintiff’s attempt to stigmatize the provision of essential health care and to single out and diminish health care professionals who provide it — as if they were a different class of medical professional or prone to conduct that would displace patient well-being for personal gain — lacks any factual basis, is contrary to the legal and ethical obligations required of medical professionals, is harmful to Arizonans, and should be rejected by this Court,” Aldama wrote.

In response to the accusations of the medical societies, Arizona Right to Life wrote on Friday that medical providers do not typically perform medical procedures for free, and that financial gain can influence their decision making.

In the same filing, the anti-abortion organization doubled down on its declaration that the summary shown to petition signers was misleading because it didn’t inform them that its “principal provision” would “eradicate” existing abortion laws.

“That basic thrust is to completely deregulate abortion and to ultimately abolish all Arizona laws that would impugn on a woman’s decision to abort her child,” Wright wrote.

A Thursday court filing in support of Arizona Right to Life’s argument by State Rep. Barbara Parker and U.S. Congressman Andy Biggs, both Republicans, expanded on the organization’s claims about the possible implications of constitutional changes the measure would make.

Their attorneys, Veronica Lucero and state Rep. Alexander Kolodin, a Scottsdale Republican, told the court that the measure should be barred from the ballot because its description failed to inform signers that the act would strip from the courts the traditional level of scrutiny they apply to legislation governing fundamental rights.

Lucero and Kolodin argued that, because that change is a “principal provision” of the Abortion Access Act, it should have been included in the summary.

“This is a sweeping change to the way Arizona courts analyze and interpret the law when it comes to fundamental rights, which include our most precious and basic individual liberties, and this transformation is plainly one of the ‘most important, consequential, and primary features of the initiative,’” they wrote.

The Arizona Abortion Access Act would enshrine the right to abortion in the state constitution and would bar the state from adopting or enforcing any law that would deny or restrict that right prior to fetal viability, unless there was a compelling state interest in doing so.

The act goes on to specify that the compelling state interest must be for the limited purpose of improving or maintaining the health of the person seeking an abortion, and that it must not interfere with that person’s autonomous decision making.

Lucero and Kolodin argued that, because this same sort of restriction on a compelling state interest is not placed on other fundamental rights and makes a change to how the courts would handle abortion law, the change should have been included in the summary.

“(T)his interest would override a compelling interest the government may have in ensuring that a healthcare provider has the religious freedom not to perform an abortion,” they wrote. “It is a material omission to the public that the Act will override any such interest because courts will not be able to weigh the fundamental right of religious freedom over the fundamental right of abortion.”

The Arizona Supreme Court is expected to rule on the appeal before Aug. 22, the deadline to print ballots in some counties.

In their filing, the medical societies impressed upon the court the importance of access to abortion as a part of standard medical care.

“Health care access should not be a game of ping-pong. Access to the full spectrum of medical care is critically important for people’s health, safety, and well-being,” Aldama wrote. “The health and well-being of people and communities are threatened when health care professionals are unable to provide medical care that patients need, free from legislative interference in the practice of medicine.”

Arizona Mirror is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arizona Mirror maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jim Small for questions: [email protected]. Follow Arizona Mirror on Facebook and X.

For abortion rights supporters in Florida, it was a tumultuous day of highs and lows.

On April 1, the Florida Supreme Court paved the way for the state to ban nearly all abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. But it also OK’d a ballot measure that would allow Florida voters to overturn the ban this November.

“I was elated and devastated,” said Natasha Sutherland, the communications director for Floridians Protecting Freedom, a coalition of state and national organizations that gathered nearly 1 million signatures for a proposed constitutional amendment enshrining the right to abortion.

“Many women don’t even know they’re pregnant by the time they’re outside of the six-week window for abortion care,” said Sutherland, who lives in Tallahassee. “Considering the stakes are so high with the abortion ban we’re now under, it was really important for us to ensure we gave it all we’ve got.”

This November, voters in as many as nine states could sidestep their legislators and directly decide whether to expand access to abortion through citizen-led ballot initiatives. Constitutional amendments in Colorado, Florida and South Dakota already have qualified for the ballot, while coalitions in Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska and Nevada are still collecting signatures or awaiting state approval on their measures.

Two more states, Maryland and New York, have abortion rights ballot measures that were referred by their state legislatures, though New York’s is currently tied up in litigation.

In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court dismantled the constitutional right to an abortion, kicking the issue back to the states. Fourteen states have outlawed abortion with almost no exceptions, while another seven states ban abortions at or before 18 weeks of pregnancy, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion rights research organization.

Yet access to abortion remains popular, even in conservative states. Since the high court’s 2022 decision, voters in six states have approved abortion access via ballot measure, including in red states such as Kansas and Kentucky.

“The whole idea of the initiative process is to put pressure on state lawmakers when there appears to be support for an issue that the median voter in the electorate might want but the median lawmaker doesn’t want,” said Daniel Smith, a professor and chair of the political science department at the University of Florida, who has authored books and papers on ballot initiatives.

In several states, Republican lawmakers opposed to abortion rights have tightened signature requirements or raised the percentage of the vote required for ballot initiatives to pass. Proponents of stricter rules say they want to prevent out-of-state interests from manipulating the process by funneling money to initiative campaigns. They say they also want to ensure that populous urban centers don’t have too much power. But in several cases, GOP backers have acknowledged that their goal is to thwart abortion rights measures that are broadly popular.

Mat Staver, an attorney based in Orlando, Florida, said it should be harder to get constitutional amendments passed because organizations from outside the state are funneling money into ballot initiatives such as the ones expanding reproductive rights. Staver is the co-founder of Liberty Counsel, a Florida-based nonprofit that opposes abortion-related ballot measures in Florida and other states.

“Even though we have a 60% threshold [in Florida], if you have the financial resources, you can get pretty much anything on the ballot you want,” he said. “That’s not good for Floridians because that doesn’t allow for debate.”

Critics argue that legislators’ attempts to impose new restrictions subvert one of the purest forms of direct democracy available to citizens.

“Democracy requires compromise,” said Alice Clapman, senior counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, a progressive law and policy nonprofit. “I am concerned that there seems to be a resistance to leaving these issues to the democratic process. Some people in power in these states feel certain issues shouldn’t be up for democratic debate.”

‘Monopoly power’

For decades, legislators on both sides of the political aisle have tried to make it harder for citizens to get various proposals on the ballot, said Smith. It just depends on who’s controlling the state’s levers of power.

“The ballot initiative takes away the monopoly power of lawmakers,” he said. “We can look at restrictions by Republicans right now on the initiative process, but doing so is myopic. It happens on both sides.”

In today’s polarized political climate, voter support for a ballot measure doesn’t necessarily translate into support for a political candidate who backs it. Smith’s research has found that many people may vote for a ballot measure while also voting for candidates from the political party that opposes it.

“And they’re fine with that,” Smith said. “There’s no cognitive dissonance in the voter’s mind. [The ballot measure] is a one-off.”

Ballot measures typically don’t boost voter turnout in presidential election years like they do in midterms and special elections. But 2024 could be different, Smith said, thanks to tepid public enthusiasm for the repeat matchup between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump. A ballot measure might prod more people to head to the polls.

‘Not unlike gerrymandering’

Last month, the Missourians for Constitutional Freedom campaign turned in more than twice the likely number of signatures needed for its measure to qualify for Missouri’s ballot in November. The proposed constitutional amendment, like Florida’s, would legalize abortion up to fetal viability — the point at which a fetus can survive outside the uterus, often considered around 24 or 25 weeks of pregnancy.

“The signature-gathering piece of this campaign was the most incredible thing I’ve ever been a part of,” said Mallory Schwarz, executive director at Abortion Action Missouri, one of the organizations participating in the campaign. “I have never seen the level of enthusiasm about the issue that I saw this year.”

New rules protect pregnant workers, but red states sue over abortion provisions

Coalition organizations trained more than a thousand volunteers who canvassed in their communities, held house parties, and knocked on tens of thousands of doors in less than three months, Schwarz said, eventually gathering more than 380,000 signatures. The state must now certify the petition for it to appear on the ballot.

Missouri voters of all political stripes have a deep attachment to the ballot initiative process that dates back more than a century, Schwarz said: “We’ve seen issues that may be presented as partisan really appeal to people across the board, year in and year out.”

In recent years, ballot measures in Republican-controlled Missouri have raised the state minimum wage, expanded Medicaid, overturned a so-called right-to-work law and decriminalized cannabis use.

This year, Missouri Republicans put forth several proposals designed to defeat abortion rights initiatives, including one that would require ballot measures to win not just a majority of votes statewide, but also a majority of votes in Missouri’s congressional districts.

After heated debate, the bill passed the Senate, but the House couldn’t reconcile different versions of the bill before the session ended.

“It’s not unlike gerrymandering,” Schwarz said. “The only way they can stop the will of the people is to change the rules of the game.”

Florida lawmakers filed a similar bill last year. They proposed a constitutional amendment to increase the percentage of votes a ballot measure needs to pass, from 60% to a two-thirds supermajority. The bill passed the House but died in the Senate.

In 2023, ballot initiatives in eight states attracted more than $205 million in donations, according to OpenSecrets, a nonprofit that tracks campaign financing and lobbying. Sutherland, with Floridians Protecting Freedom, pointed out that the campaign raised nearly $12 million in April and May, but about 70% of contributions coming from within Florida.

An array of tactics

Ohio voters pass constitutional amendment to protect abortion and reproductive rights

After abortion rights advocates gathered nearly 500,000 signatures in Ohio to get a reproductive rights amendment on the November 2023 ballot, the Republican secretary of state and the Ohio Ballot Board changed the wording of the amendment’s summary in a way that opponents said was incomplete and inaccurate. Ohio voters approved the ballot measure anyway, enshrining abortion access in the state constitution last November.

A similar scenario unfolded In Missouri, where Republican Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft attempted to change the wording of a proposed abortion rights ballot measure so that it would ask voters whether they were in favor of “dangerous and unregulated abortions until live birth.” A Missouri court later struck down the language.

In Arizona, GOP lawmakers have put their own constitutional amendment on the November 2024 ballot that would require organizers to gather a certain percentage of signatures from every one of Arizona’s 30 legislative districts rather than in the state as a whole. They’ve also considered a strategy to introduce their own abortion-related ballot measures to compete with the abortion rights measure.

If reproductive rights ballot amendments pass, they’ll likely face legal challenges that stretch far beyond the election.

Staver, of the Liberty Counsel, said his organization would investigate legal channels for blocking implementation of Florida’s amendment.

“There may be litigation that would be necessary to argue that preexisting constitutional rights override this amendment,” said Staver, who believes the amendment is overly broad.

Clapman, with the Brennan Center, said she also expects lawmakers to continue pushing back against ballot measures: “It’s not a fight that’s going to go away even if initiatives pass.”

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: [email protected]. Follow Stateline on Facebook and X.

WASHINGTON — Former President Donald Trump said Monday that if reelected he plans to work “side by side” with a newly formed religious organization that says abortion is the “greatest atrocity facing” the United States and should be “eradicated entirely.”

During two-minute recorded remarks played at The Danbury Institute’s inaugural Life & Liberty Forum in Indianapolis, Trump avoided using the word “abortion,” but said he hopes to protect “innocent life” if reelected in November.

“We have to defend religious liberty, free speech, innocent life, and the heritage and tradition that built America into the greatest nation in the history of the world,” Trump said. “But now we are, as you know, a declining nation.”

Trump, the Republican Party’s presumptive presidential nominee, said that he hopes to work alongside the institute to defend those values.

“These are going to be your years because you’re going to make a comeback like just about no other group,” Trump said. “I know what’s happening. I know where you’re coming from and where you’re going. And I’ll be with you side by side.”

Trump also called on The Danbury Institute and church members to vote for him during the November presidential election, saying that President Joe Biden and Democrats are “against religion.”

Biden-Harris 2024 spokesperson Sarafina Chitika said in a written statement released before Trump’s message was played that a second term for him “is sure to bring more extreme abortion bans with no exceptions, women punished for seeking the care they need, and doctors criminalized for providing care.”

“Women can and will stop him by reelecting President Biden and Vice President Harris this November,” Chitika wrote.

Abortion position

The Danbury Institute writes on its website that it opposes abortion from “the moment of conception, meaning that each pre-born baby would be treated with the same protection under the law as born people.”

“The intentional, pre-meditated killing of a pre-born child should be addressed with laws already in place concerning homicide,” its website states. “We also support bolstering the foster care system and encouraging Christian adoption and are working with churches around the country to help them become equipped to care for children in need of loving families.”

Another section of the Danbury Institute’s website states the organization believes, “the greatest atrocity facing our generation today is the practice of abortion—child sacrifice on the altar of self.”

“Abortion must be ended,” the website states. “We will not rest until it is eradicated entirely.”

The website doesn’t mention if the organization supports exceptions in cases of rape, incest or the woman’s life, nor does it say if women who receive abortions should be protected from criminal prosecution. The institute did not return a request from States Newsroom seeking to clarify if it supports any or all of those three exceptions.

The institute writes on its website that it “does not endorse any candidate for public office nor participate in political campaign activities. Contributions to The Danbury Institute are not used for political campaigning and are conducted in accordance with IRS regulations for nonprofit organizations.”

Florida minister takes issue with abortion letter

Tom Ascol, president of Founders Ministries in Florida, spoke on a panel discussion about the “Sanctity of Life” at Monday’s event, during which he said “abortion is the greatest evil of this nation in our day.”

Ascol also appeared frustrated with a public letter released by dozens of anti-abortion organizations in May 2022, arguing that no laws should criminalize women who have abortions. He took particular exception to the acting president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission signing his name to the document.

Noem dodges CNN questions on abortion exceptions and election certification

“It grieves me that when there was legislation before the Louisiana legislature that had a real opportunity to be passed, because there were lawmakers that were willing to go forward … that 75 pro-life organizations penned an open letter, including the leader of our Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission Brent Leatherwood, who attached his name to that letter, saying, ‘We do not think that any legislature should criminalize abortion to the degree that those who offer their bodies up to be given over to abortion would be held liable,’” Ascol said during the conference.

That letter was released the same day in 2022 that state lawmakers in Louisiana were debating House Bill 813, which had been on track to criminalize women who receive abortions in addition to the doctors who provide them. Prosecutors would have been able to charge the women with murder.

Louisiana lawmakers instead opted to rework the language of the original bill to replace it with another anti-abortion measure that didn’t include criminal penalties for women who receive abortions.

Ascol said he believed the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission must say publicly if “the goal (is) the abolition of abortion. And if it is and they’re sincere, then okay, let’s work together.”

“If we can do that, I think we can have some opportunity for coalition building,” Ascol said. “If we get more of these open letters by so-called pro-life organizations helping to spike legitimate legislation, then I think we’re going to continue to see the fragmentation and understandably so.”

National Right to Life, Susan B. Anthony List and Americans United for Life were among the organizations that signed the May 2022 letter.

Trump and abortion, contraception

Trump’s comments to The Danbury Institute on Monday didn’t clear up the confusion stemming from his comments to news organizations during the past few months.

Trump said during an interview with TIME Magazine published in April that his campaign would be releasing a policy in the weeks that followed on access to medication abortion, a two-drug regimen approved for up to 10 weeks gestation.

Former lawmaker Turbak Berry will lead new group supporting abortion-rights amendment

“Well, I have an opinion on that, but I’m not going to explain,” Trump said, according to the transcript of the interview. “I’m not gonna say it yet. But I have pretty strong views on that. And I’ll be releasing it probably over the next week.”

That policy had not been released as of Monday.

Medication abortion, which include mifepristone and misoprostol, makes up about 63% of pregnancy terminations within the United States, according to data from the Guttmacher Institute.

U.S. Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments in a case about mifepristone’s use in late March and are expected to publish their ruling before the Fourth of July.

During an interview with a Pittsburgh TV news station in May, Trump hinted that he might be open to states limiting or banning access to contraception, though he walked back his remarks the same day in a social media post.

“We’re looking at that and I’m going to have a policy on that very shortly and I think it’s something that you’ll find interesting,” Trump said on KDKA after being asked if he could support any restrictions on a person’s right to contraception. “It’s another issue that’s very interesting. But you will find it very smart. I think it’s a smart decision, but we’ll be releasing it very soon.”

Trump later posted on social media that he never had and never would “ADVOCATE IMPOSING RESTRICTIONS ON BIRTH CONTROL, or other contraceptives.”

Trump’s campaign had not released a policy on contraception as of Monday.

U.S. Senate vote on IVF set this week

Access to reproductive health care, including contraception and IVF, has become a recurring issue in the U.S. Senate ahead of November’s elections, with Democrats seeking to put GOP members on the record.

The Senate tried to pass legislation last week that would have provided protections for access to contraception, but the vast majority of the chamber’s Republicans voted against advancing that bill.

Access to contraception is currently protected by two U.S. Supreme Court cases — Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird — where the justices ruled that Americans’ privacy rights allow them to make those decisions for themselves.

Democrats and reproductive rights advocates are concerned that the justices could eventually overturn those two cases the same way the court overturned Roe v. Wade.

The Senate is set to vote this week on legislation guaranteeing access to in vitro fertilization, though GOP senators are expected to block that bill as well.

South Dakota Searchlight is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. South Dakota Searchlight maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Seth Tupper for questions: [email protected]. Follow South Dakota Searchlight on Facebook and Twitter.

Politico reported Sunday that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee "the biggest source of Republican money flowing into competitive Democratic primaries this year," sparking new calls for candidates and voters nationwide to #RejectAIPAC.

"If you don't want Republican megadonors to choose your next Democratic congressperson for you, then there's only one option: #RejectAIPAC," Naftali Ehrenkranz, digital director at Get Free, said on social media, pointing to the reporting.

Also noting the "bombshell" report, Yonah Lieberman, co-founder of the Jewish American organization IfNotNow, said that "AIPAC is a GOP front group. Democrats who accept their money or endorsement should be shamed out of the party."

Institute on Race, Power, and Political Economy senior fellow Nina Turner, a former Democratic congressional candidate, declared, "AIPAC is a right-wing group that buys deep blue seats."

Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, drew a comparison to the National Rifle Association, saying, "Imagine how mainstream Democrats would react if the NRA was the single biggest source of Republicans donating into Democratic primaries."

Support for or criticism of the Israeli government has become a defining issue in this election cycle over the past eight months, as Israel has waged a war on the Gaza Strip that has led to a genocide case at the International Court of Justice. AIPAC, which supports pro-Israel Democratic and Republican candidates, has targeted progressives who oppose the military assault.

"We are proud to engage in the democratic process in a bipartisan way to help elect candidates who support the U.S.-Israel relationship," AIPAC spokesperson Marshall Wittmann said in a statement. "Candidates from both parties should welcome the engagement of pro-Israel activists because Americans overwhelmingly stand with the Jewish state. In fact, those who object to our participation only represent a small, extremist fringe."

Gallup polling released in March shows that 55% of Americans disapprove of Israeli military actions in Gaza—which as of Sunday, have killed over 37,000 people, according to local officials. A Pew Research Center survey published last week found that 53% of U.S. adults have little to no confidence that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will "do the right thing regarding world affairs."

Politico put out the findings from its analysis—which is based on a review of Federal Election Commission filings from AIPAC, the ActBlue and WinRed donation platforms, and individual campaigns—a day after thousands of American critics of Israel's war and U.S. complicity in it descended on the White House while Israeli forces slaughtered hundreds more Palestinians.

According to the outlet:

Only about 2% of this cycle's donors to Democratic candidates or through the Democratic giving platform ActBlue have also given to Republicans over the past few cycles, Politico's analysis found. But 46% of donors who have given to Democratic candidates via AIPAC this cycle have given to Republicans since the 2020 cycle. For Republican donors, giving to Democratic candidates in primaries helps ensure more moderate, pro-Israel candidates win in deep-blue seats where the general election is all but certain to be uncompetitive, and financial support for GOP candidates would be a waste.

The top recipient of AIPAC money—at least $1.61 million—is Westchester County Executive George Latimer, who launched his challenge to Democratic Congressman Jamaal Bowman in New York's 16th Congressional District after visiting Israel.

Responding to the report on social media Sunday, Bowman—who has called Israel's assault on Gaza genocide—said that "Republicans are setting records spending against us. And we're going to break records beating them."

Politico pointed out that "competitive Democratic primaries are also the biggest targets for AIPAC's affiliated super PAC, United Democracy Project, which has already spent $19.8 million in them this year, including $9.3 million in the Bowman-Latimer race. That makes it by far the biggest outside group in Democratic primaries, with more money flowing from UDP than the next 10 biggest spenders combined. (The super PAC has also spent in a handful of GOP primaries, dropping $3 million total.)"

The New York arm of the Working Families Party, which is backing Bowman in the June 25 primary, shared Politico's graph of top AIPAC beneficiaries and stressed that "we must be united in rejecting AIPAC's efforts to subvert our democracy."

After Bowman and two incumbents is St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Wesley Bell, at $869,300. He is trying to oust another progressive "Squad" member, Democratic Congresswoman Cori Bush, in the August 6 primary for Missouri's 1st District.

"My opponent Wesley Bell is among AIPAC's TOP 4 recipients this cycle—and is gladly taking money from anti-abortion, anti-LGBTQ+, anti-labor, pro-NRA Republicans who expect his loyalty in return above all else," Bush said on social media. "We deserve better. #StLouisIsNotForSale."

Fellow "Squad" member Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) also weighed in, saying, "Hmm it's almost like AIPAC functions as a political slush fund for Republican billionaires and should not have influence in the Democratic Party, let alone our primaries."

People for Bernie—which was initially launched in support of U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) 2016 Democratic presidential campaign—said, "Simply put: George Latimer in New York and Wesley Bell in Missouri are trying to become Democratic members of Congress off millions of dollars of money from rich right-wing Republicans."

Justice Democrats, which worked to elect Bowman, Bush, and Ocasio-Cortez, asserted that reelecting the New York and Missouri progressives "is a vote to #RejectAIPAC and Republican donors spending in our elections."

The group also noted Republican President Donald Trump, who is expected to face Democratic President Joe Biden in November. Justice Democrats said, "Now that it's undeniable that AIPAC is *the* vehicle for Republican billionaires to spend in Democratic primaries, you have to ask what type of candidates would be willing to be bought and paid for by Trump donors?"

Fifty-six years ago, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1968, which included Titles 8 and 9.

Commonly known known as the Fair Housing Act, Titles 8 and 9 expanded elements of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The Fair Housing Act prohibits housing discrimination when homes are sold.

But in an article published on June 3, New York Times reporter Debra Kamin details an example of overt housing discrimination that occurred in 2024.

READ MORE:How the 'virus of Trumpism' is corrupting the Supreme Court and Congress: analysis

Dr. Raven Baxter, a molecular biologist, was hoping to purchase a condo in Virginia Beach, Virginia that was going for $749,000. Baxter, according to Kamin, had made a down payment, but the seller wanted to pull out of the deal because she is Black.

Baxter, Kamin reports, has responded by contacting a civil rights attorney addition to filing a discrimination claim with the Virginia Fair Housing Office and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

The case received a great deal of attention after Baxter wrote about it on X, formerly Twitter.

Baxter told the Times, "Had I not gone to Twitter and received help from people who knew what they were doing, I would have been panicking the entire weekend. It was my first time buying a house. I knew my civil rights were being violated. I knew that something illegal was happening, but no one knew what to do."

The molecular biologist says she was shocked after learning why the sale had fallen through.

READ MORE:Thurgood Marshall's law clerk is 'furious' with today’s Supreme Court — here's why

Gamble told the Times, "I kind of fell back in my chair. I could not believe what I was hearing. Well after the Civil Rights movement, after COVID, after George Floyd, you would think society isn't still thinking this way. But in 2024, they still are."

According to Kamin, "Dr. Baxter's home sale remains set to close later this summer."

"But even if the deal goes through," the Times reporter explains, "her rights under the Fair Housing Act have still been potentially violated, said Brenda Castañeda, deputy director of advocacy for HOME of VA, a nonprofit that assists Virginians who believe they have experienced housing discrimination. Real estate agents are required by law to not discriminate, which means they must inform sellers who insist on acting with prejudice that they will not represent them, and extricate themselves from a sale if the seller will not acquiesce."

READ MORE: 'Take back some control': Kansas abortion provider offers low-cost vasectomies

The New York Times' full article is available at this link (subscription required).

TOPEKA — A regional abortion provider is rolling out vasectomy services in Kansas as part of a toolkit to keep reproductive choices secure at the family level.

The move comes after increased demand as multiple states attempt to chip away at reproductive rights.

Planned Parenthood Great Plains is hosting a low-cost two-day vasectomy clinic at its Kansas City, Kansas, health center May 30-31 to kick off the service, which will continue to be offered at the center.

Planned Parenthood Great Plains president and CEO Emily Wales said the decision came after increased demand following the 2022 federal overturn of abortion protections.

“We don’t see hesitation,” Wales said. “We see folks who are really appreciative, excited. It is a pretty cool thing I think, to have patients here who are saying openly, ‘This moment is a terrible one for sexual and reproductive health care. And this is a thing I can do to help take care of my family and my loved ones. And I’m going to do it for all of us.’ ”

While Kansas is one of the few states in the region left that protects abortion — legal up to 22 weeks of gestation — the state has been flooded with out-of-state travelers needing abortion services. Kansas has six centers that provide abortions, but one has shut down services with no set deadline to reopen after staff changes.

Planned Parenthood Great Plains has added a handful of appointments to mitigate the effect of the shutdown, but the organization is already dealing with a heavy workload. The organization will be expanding access this fall, opening a center in southeast Kansas to keep up with demand.

Wales estimated the boom in demand began in 2021, when the Texas Legislature initiated a six-week abortion ban, prompting a wave of Texans traveling to Kansas for abortion care. The 2022 overturn of Roe v. Wade increased need, especially after Oklahoma, Missouri, Arkansas and Louisiana banned abortion.

In-state abortion providers have also had to contend with a web of abortion restrictions passed by a Republican-dominated Legislature. While Kansas voters in August of 2022 overwhelmingly defeated a constitutional amendment meant to take away the right to terminate a pregnancy, lawmakers have continuously tried to restrict the procedure, adding more regulations to the Women’s Right to Know Act, a patchwork legislation governing the state’s abortion protocols.

Planned Parenthood Great Plains and other abortion providers in-state have ongoing litigation against several provisions in the act, most recently challenging an “abortion survey” law passed in 2024.

“We’re not strangers to having to adapt our processes, make changes, go through hurdles and hoops,” Wales said. “But in a state like Kansas, where you have a constitutional protection to access this care, we shouldn’t be going through any of those hurdles and hoops.”

To combat state restrictions, the organization launched vasectomy services last year starting with a Tulsa, Oklahoma, center and expanding through Arkansas, Oklahoma and Missouri. The organization has completed 189 vasectomy procedures to date.

“Providing accessible reproductive and sexual health care is at the core of our mission to empower individuals to lead healthy, autonomous lives,” said Iman Alsaden, chief medical officer at Planned Parenthood Great Plains.

The overall rate of U.S. vasectomy procedures has increased since the end of Roe, becoming a more popular birth control option as states imposed partial or total abortion bans. The procedure is permanent, can be accomplished in one appointment and is relatively cheap compared to other methods of birth control such as IUDS. Planned Parenthood Great Plains estimates a cost of $250 to $750 for a vasectomy during the two-day clinic.

“We saw a bump in patients requesting IUD implants and I think vasectomy is kind of the same reaction where folks were caught off guard, shocked by what the Supreme Court did, shocked by the idea that the government could control such personal decisions,” Wales said. “And so vasectomy feels like a way to take back some of that control over your own body and your own future.”

Kansas Reflector is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Kansas Reflector maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Sherman Smith for questions: [email protected]. Follow Kansas Reflector on Facebook and Twitter.

May is Asian and Pacific American Heritage Month, a time when Americans celebrate the profound contributions of Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders – a group that is commonly abbreviated as AAPI – to U.S. society. It’s also a time to acknowledge the complexity of AAPI experience.

President Joe Biden renewed his call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and highlighted federal spending in historically Black colleges during Sunday’s speech before hundreds of Morehouse College graduates who represent a demographic Biden needs to win the Nov. 5 election.

Biden’s role as commencement speaker at the storied historically Black college in Atlanta had been met with concern from those who disagree with his handling of Israel’s military response to Hamas’ attack on Oct. 7, as well as from those who feared it would be a distraction from the graduates’ achievement.

Biden’s roughly 25-minute speech went uninterrupted and ended with Biden receiving an honorary degree from Morehouse as the crowd applauded.

“I’m not going home,” Biden quipped with a broad smile after receiving the honor.

But there were some visible signs of discontent on the campus, which is the alma mater of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. and which has a long history of social activism. Off campus, well over 100 people, many of them students, gathered to protest Biden’s appearance, largely over his continued support of Israel.

Some graduates, including the college’s valedictorian who wore a small Palestinian flag pin on his stole, displayed some form of the Palestinian flag. A faculty member stood as Biden spoke and turned away with her fist in the air.

With Biden sitting nearby, valedictorian Deangelo Jeremiah Fletcher called for the release of all hostages and for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in the Gaza Strip.

“It is only right for the class of 2024 to utilize any platform provided to stand in solidarity with peace and justice,” Fletcher said in his speech.

Biden clapped and then greeted Fletcher with a handshake as the graduate left the stage and later addressed the issue in his speech, saying there is a “humanitarian crisis in Gaza.” He renewed his call for an immediate ceasefire and said he is actively working to find a solution.

“It’s one of the hardest, most complicated problems in the world. There’s nothing easy about it,” Biden said to the graduates. “I know it angers and frustrates many of you, including my family. But most of all, I know it breaks your heart. It breaks mine as well.

“Leadership is about fighting through the most intractable problems. It’s about challenging anger, frustration, and heartbreak to find a solution. It’s about doing what you believe is right, even when it’s hard and lonely,” he said.

The speech at Morehouse happened as Biden continues to trail his GOP rival former President Donald Trump in the polls and amid concerns about waning enthusiasm for Biden among young Black voters, who are usually an important part of the Democratic base.

In a New York Times poll published earlier this month, 26% of voters between 18 and 29 said they would vote for Biden if the election were held today, less than any other age group. Another 30% said they would vote for Trump, also less than any other age group.

Biden pledged to continue supporting HBCUs on Sunday, while touting that during his administration, the federal funding for HBCUs has eclipsed a record $16 billion. And he warned of the threats extremists pose to democracy.

“Extremists close the doors of opportunity, strike down affirmative action, attack the values of diversity, equality and inclusion,” he said.

“I never thought I’d be a president at a time when there’s a national effort to ban books. Not to write history, but to erase history. They don’t see you in the future of America, but they’re wrong. To me, we make history, not erase it. We know Black history is American history.”

Rasheed Canton, who graduated from Morehouse on Sunday, said Biden’s commencement speech and the protest calls were hard to ignore as the spring semester wound down. Canton, however, said he wasn’t surprised that Biden’s speech and the rest of the commencement ceremony went smoothly despite simmering tensions.

He said that Trump and Biden will try to spur young Black voters to the polls in November, whether through financial pledges or other promises of support.

“Biden will need to make up some ground heading into November, especially if the war remains at the forefront of minds,” the DeKalb County native said following Sunday’s ceremony. “I’ll still be supporting the Democratic presidential candidate, who I think best represents the values of myself, my Morehouse brothers and the Black community overall.”

Morehouse College released a statement following the graduation ceremony stating the administration was upholding the school’s tradition of supporting the rights of people to protest on behalf of social justice issues in a peaceful manner. The statement also applauded the federal funding for HBCUs and the president’s calls for a ceasefire in the Gaza strip.

“The world frequently quotes our most famous and beloved alumnus, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., but the world must know that without Morehouse, there would be no Dr. King,” the statement said. “It is fitting that a moment of organized, peaceful activism would occur on our campus while the world is watching to continue a critical conversation. We are proud of the resilient class of 2024’s unity in silent protest, showing their intentionality in strategy, communication, and coordination as a 412-person unit.”

Protesters march outside Morehouse campus

While Morehouse commencement’s ceremony was underway, more than 100 demonstrators gathered at a nearby park before marching to Morehouse. Police officers on bicycles pedaled alongside the marchers and blocked them from entering the campus, but the protest remained peaceful.

Standing outside one of the school’s entrances, protesters banged drums and chanted slogans like “Free Palestine” and “Come November, we’ll remember.”

“I don’t like that he’s here,” said Morehouse junior Daxton Pettus.

A Morehouse student films as protesters march past the campus. (Ross Williams/Georgia Recorder)

“I think it is horrible that he is here when he has committed atrocious acts against the Black community as far as mass incarceration and supporting bills that further that, atrocious acts as far as sending aid to Israel to aid in their war crimes, and atrocious acts against students, especially, Morehouse-Spelman students were already brutalized at the Emory occupation, and the school failed to say anything, but the president did, and what he said is that those students are violent and that the responses were adequate, and I think that’s inappropriate because that sort of language, it allows for us to be brutalized for those people’s voices to be suppressed.”

Many of the young marchers said Biden’s appearance smacks of election-year pandering for Black votes, which they said stings all the more because of Morehouse’s association with the Civil Rights Movement.

Andrea Richmond is immersed in the Atlanta University Center Consortium, the group of historic Black colleges in Atlanta that includes Morehouse, Spelman College and Clark Atlanta University. Richmond graduated from Spelman in 2019 and has a brother who went to Morehouse and a sister who went to Clark Atlanta. Her mom worked at Morehouse for 25 years.

“I’ve grown up in the AUC,” she said. “I’ve seen a lot of actions at the AUC. I’ve heard about the aura of the AUC, and I want the AUC to actually stand for what it talks about, which is not only the promotion of Black individuals, but also the promotion of all marginalized people.”

Georgia Recorder is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Georgia Recorder maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor John McCosh for questions: [email protected]. Follow Georgia Recorder on Facebook and Twitter.

Less than a month after a key abortion pill hearing, the right-wing U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday heard arguments for another major reproductive rights case—one out of Idaho that could impact healthcare for pregnant women and people across the country.

Idaho is among the over 20 states that have tightened restrictions on abortion since the high court's right-wing majority reversedRoe v. Wade nearly two years ago with Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. Since August 2022, abortions have been banned in the state except for reported cases of rape or incest or when "necessary to prevent the death" of the pregnant person.

"If the court does not uphold emergency abortion care protections, this ruling will have devastating consequences for pregnant people."

Before Idaho's near-total ban on abortion took effect, U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill barred enforcement of it to the extent that it conflicts with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a 1986 federal law requiring emergency departments that accept Medicare to provide "necessary stabilizing treatment" to any patient with an emergency medical condition.

The Biden administration argues that such care includes abortion; Idaho's Republican policymakers—backed by the far-right Christian Alliance Defending Freedom—disagree. The U.S. Supreme Court in January paused Winmill's order and agreed to hear arguments in Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States.

As The New York Timesreported Wednesday:

In a lively argument, questions by the justices suggested a divide along ideological lines, as well as a possible split by gender on the court. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative, appeared skeptical that Idaho's law, which bars doctors from providing abortions unless a woman's life is in danger or in specific nonviable pregnancies, superseded the federal law. The argument also raised a broader question about whether some of the conservative justices, particularly Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., may be prepared to embrace language of fetal personhood, that is, the notion that a fetus would have the same rights as a pregnant woman.

Also noting Barrett's apparent alignment with the three liberal women on the court, Law Dork's Chris Geidner predicted "it comes down to" Chief Justice John Roberts and fellow right-winger Brett Kavanaugh.

"Already, we see women miscarrying and giving birth to stillborn infants in restrooms and in their cars after hospitals have turned them away, and medical professionals put in impossible positions by extremist lawmakers," said MomsRising executive director and CEO Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, citing Associated Pressreporting from last week.

"Of all the horrors SCOTUS unleashed with its appalling, dangerous, massively unpopular ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, the threat that pregnant people—most of whom are moms—will be denied emergency medical care is among the worst," she asserted. "An adverse ruling in this case will mean emergency rooms can deny urgently needed care to people experiencing serious pregnancy complications that can destroy their health, end their fertility, and take their lives."

Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, deputy director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, similarly stressed that under a decision that favors the Idaho GOP, "pregnant people will suffer severe, life-altering health consequences, and even death."

"We're already seeing the devastating impact of this case play out in Idaho, where medical evacuations to transport patients to other states for the care they need have dramatically spiked since the Supreme Court allowed state politicians to block emergency abortion care," she noted.

The has also been an exodus of healthcare providers. Pointing out that those who violate Idaho's ban face five years in prison, The Guardianreported Wednesday that "between 2022, when Roe was overturned, and 2023, about 50 OB-GYNs moved out of the state."

As Republican lawmakers in various states have ramped up attacks on reproductive freedom since Dobbs, states that still allow abortions have seen an influx of "healthcare refugees." A Planned Parenthood spokesperson confirmed in January that about 30% of its abortion patients in Nevada—which borders Idaho—are from other states.

"With several of Nevada's bordering states enforcing abortion bans, pushing many people seeking care to our state, we've seen firsthand the devastation that anti-abortion policies are already wreaking," Reproductive Freedom for All director of Nevada campaigns Denise Lopez said Tuesday. "The Supreme Court must not allow us to spiral further into this healthcare crisis."

If the high court rules in favor of Idaho's Republican lawmakers, she warned, "all states will be impacted, even in places like Nevada with more than 4 in 5 voters supporting reproductive freedom."

Destiny Lopez, acting co-CEO of the Guttmacher Institute, declared that "at its core, this Supreme Court decision will reflect who we are becoming as a society: Are we okay with requiring pregnant individuals who face severe complications to suffer life-threatening health consequences rather than granting them access to abortion? Are we okay with forcing doctors to choose between violating federal law by not providing emergency abortion care or violating state law if they do?"

"If the court does not uphold emergency abortion care protections, this ruling will have devastating consequences for pregnant people—particularly Black and Brown folks, immigrants, people with lower incomes, those without health insurance, and LGBTQ+ communities—while further emboldening extremists," she emphasized.

Arguments in the case have sparked multiple demonstrations, from a weekend rally in Boise, Idaho to a Wednesday gathering outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., where Women's March organized a die-in to highlight the potential consequences of the forthcoming ruling.

"It's a horrifying time to be someone who needs critical abortion care in America right now," said Women's March executive director Rachel O'Leary Carmona. "The GOP is chipping away at women's bodily autonomy and livelihoods one illegitimate court case at a time—from fast-tracking a case on the authorization of a medication that's been safely administered for decades last month, to now bringing the fate of emergency abortion care to a Supreme Court captured by their radical, anti-choice agenda."

"We know what these cases really are: They're part of a series of efforts by Christian nationalist politicians to do anything they can to control women's bodies and cut back women's decisions about their healthcare, their family planning, and their lives," she added.

Similar warnings about far-right Christian nationalist attacks on a range of rights have dominated political contests this cycle—including the race for the White House. In November, Democratic President Joe Biden, who supports access to abortion care, is set to face former Republican President Donald Trump, who brags about appointing three of the six justices who reversed Roe.

The case has renewed arguments for considering changes to the country's top court, which over the past few years has not only seen plummeting levels of public trust but also been rocked by repeated ethics scandals.

"Idaho's abortion ban is a direct consequence of the court's radical decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and allow partisan state legislatures to determine Americans' access to abortion care," said Stand Up America managing director of policy and political affairs Brett Edkins. "If the Supreme Court once again sides with anti-abortion extremists, it will be further proof that this court is radically out of touch with the American people and must be reformed."

US President Joe Biden has condemned Iranian attacks on Israel and pledged a coordinated G7 diplomatic response. "I condemn these attacks in the strongest possible terms," Biden said in a statement. He said he had spoken with Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to "reaffirm America’s ironclad commitment to the security of Israel." "I told him that Israel demonstrated a remarkable capacity to defend against and defeat even unprecedented attacks – sending a clear message to its foes that they cannot effectively threaten the security of Israel." G7 leaders would meet "to coordinate a united ...

Conservative pundit Piers Morgan on Friday told Bill Maher that he doesn't "respect" Donald Trump's recent reversal on abortion. Morgan, who was silenced on his own television show last month when broadcaster Mehdi Hasan delivered a brutal rundown of his reasons why former President Trump should not be reelected as president, appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher. The commentators discussed abortion, where Maher mocked Trump's hard-left turn on the crucial issue. Want more breaking political news? Click for the latest headlines at Raw Story. ALSO READ: Revealed: What government officials priva...

Melania Trump's first campaign event in the 2024 cycle will be with the pro-LGBTQ group, the Log Cabin Republicans, according to a new report. The New York Times reported Friday that the former first lady, known for supporting LGBTQ rights, will help raise money for a group that was banned from the Texas Republican Party. The Mar-a-Lago fundraiser will take place on April 20, according to the report. Want more breaking political news? Click for the latest headlines at Raw Story. Melania Trump's absence from public view has raised questions about the couple's relationship as the former presiden...

Democratic Arizona state Senator Eva Burch made headlines last week after speaking on the floor of the state Senate about her plans to obtain an abortion after receiving news that her pregnancy was nonviable. Arizona has banned all abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. “I felt like it was really important for me to bring people along, so that people could really see what this looks like,” says Burch, a former nurse practitioner who worked at a women’s health clinic before running for office, about why she decided to publicly tell her story. “I wanted to pull people into the conversation so we can be more honest about what abortion care looks like” and “hopefully move the needle in the right direction,” she adds.

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.

As we continue on the issue of reproductive rights, we’re joined by Democratic Arizona state Senator Eva Burch. Last week, she made headlines when she gave a speech on the floor of the Arizona state Senate where she shared her plans to get an abortion after receiving news that her pregnancy was nonviable. State Senator Burch spoke about her struggles with fertility and miscarriage she had over a decade ago.

SEN. EVA BURCH: Two years ago, while I was campaigning for this Senate seat, I became pregnant with what we later determined was a nonviable pregnancy. It was a pregnancy that we had been trying for, and we were heartbroken over it. But now I wish I could tell you otherwise, but after numerous ultrasounds and blood draws, we have determined that my pregnancy is once again not progressing and is not viable. And once again, I have scheduled an appointment to terminate my pregnancy. I don’t think people should have to justify their abortions, but I’m choosing to talk about why I made this decision, because I want us to be able to have meaningful conversations about the reality of how the work that we do in this body impacts people in the real world.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s Arizona state Senator Eva Burch, a former nurse practitioner who worked at a women’s health clinic and has been widely critical of abortion restrictions in Arizona, where abortions are banned after 15 weeks of pregnancy, no exceptions for rape or incest. State Senator Eva Burch is joining us now from Phoenix.

We welcome you to Democracy Now! And let me start by saying you publicly announced plans last week to have an abortion. I can’t believe we’re talking about this globally. Did you have the procedure? And what was it like to have to make this public to everyone? And as you did this, Republicans walked out of the state Senate.

SEN. EVA BURCH: Good morning. Thank you for having me on the show today.

You know, I felt like it was really important for me to bring people along so that people could really see what this looks like. I’m at this critical intersection in the abortion conversation, because I’ve been healthcare provider, I’ve been a patient seeking abortion care, and now, as a lawmaker, I knew that my perspective was unique. And I wanted to share that. I wanted to pull people into the conversation so that we could be more honest about what abortion care looks like in Arizona — but this is happening all over the country — and who the abortion patient is, and really try to break through some of the stigma and some of the misunderstanding about abortion care, and hopefully move the needle in the right direction.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Senator, could you talk about how your profession as a health provider and a nurse practitioner has influenced your approach, the conversations perhaps you’ve had with other women in similar situations?

SEN. EVA BURCH: Certainly. I worked in the reproductive healthcare space for some time. I don’t work in abortion care, because that’s not something that’s available to me as a nurse practitioner, but I have had patients who were pregnant who had questions, patients who were concerned about whether or not Arizona is a hospitable environment for someone who is pregnant, patients who are unsure about whether or not continuing their pregnancy is the right decision for them. And we have to counsel them with the understanding that our laws here are in flux, that abortion care is not guaranteed in Arizona by any means, not only for patients who are just uncertain about whether or not they want to continue their pregnancy, but for patients who might be experiencing complications in their pregnancy or pregnancy loss the way that I was.

AMY GOODMAN: You spoke —

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And could you —

AMY GOODMAN: Go ahead, Juan.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Can you talk about the reaction, since you made your announcement, from other members of the Senate, as well as protesters, how you and your family have coped with that?

SEN. EVA BURCH: Yes, I have had an overwhelmingly positive response. It has really been moving for me. I’ve had people sending me letters to the Legislature. I have had emails and messages and direct messages on social media to the tune of thousands. What I’m mostly receiving are people telling me their own stories or just thanking me for giving them a seat at the table. I think that people really don’t want to bring people along with them with their abortion experiences. This is highly personal, and it’s a little bit taboo, and often it’s a sensitive subject. People don’t want to talk about it, but they want to be heard. And I think people are just really grateful for this opportunity to pull people in and to have a voice, to have a seat at the table.

Now, as far as the reaction within the Legislature, I haven’t had any of my Republican colleagues reach out to me to talk about this, not in the way that maybe I would have hoped for, but I wasn’t overly optimistic about that. It wasn’t so much about trying to convince my colleagues as much as it was about trying to bring light to what’s happening in Arizona so that our constituents can make decisions for themselves and hopefully get engaged in the political process and help us to elect pro-choice candidates up and down the ticket. That’s really what we need in Arizona and in this country to make real change.

AMY GOODMAN: In one of the articles, many about you, state Senator Burch, they said you said that “I was told I could choose adoption, I was told I could choose parenting, which were two things that I couldn’t choose. It was cruel to suggest that that was an option for me, when it’s not.” If you could explain that, then also what it was like to have these Republicans walk out on you, one of them, a female state legislator, walking in, thinking you were done with your speech, then walking out for the second time?

SEN. EVA BURCH: Yes. So, I think that a lot of people don’t really understand the ways that laws can be sort of weaponized against patients, not to necessarily ban abortion, but to make abortion inaccessible or a difficult experience, to create a hostile environment in the abortion clinic, to create confusion in the patient and provider relationship. And we have a lot of that in Arizona. There is this mandatory counseling, where they have to talk about adoption and parenting as alternatives to abortion, which, of course, is not always relevant to patients, which is why it should be medical providers who are determining the appropriate counseling for their patients. They also have to talk about the probable physical and anatomical properties of the fetus at the time that your abortion will take place, which, again, certainly in my case, but in general, is inappropriate and unnecessary. And my pregnancy was not progressing. My embryo was dying and not subject to the probabilities of a normal healthy pregnancy, so that information was also just factually inaccurate for me. But that’s what the providers are required to do because of out-of-touch legislators, who don’t have any medical professional experience, who are writing the laws and dictating what doctors have to say to patients in that environment.

As far as my Republican colleagues filtering in and out and not really listening to what I had to say, I have a couple of thoughts on that. One of them is just that I think that these laws are intended to do what they did. So I don’t think that they are surprised by it or concerned about it. I think that, really, it just reinforces that what they’re doing with these laws is having the intended impacts. So I don’t think that there’s necessarily any need for my Republican colleagues to hear what I have to say, because they’re not going to make any changes or do things any differently because of that. I will also say that I have good relationships with a number of my Republican colleagues. We disagree on a lot of things. It’s really the leadership in the Arizona Senate that is so skewed far to the right. They are extremists. And they really have sort of set themselves up for failure in that way. But I didn’t experience anything that I wasn’t expecting in the chamber that day.

AMY GOODMAN: We just have 30 seconds. If you could respond to the mifepristone oral arguments in the Supreme Court?

SEN. EVA BURCH: Yes. I mean, I can’t believe we’re even talking about it, to be honest with you. I mean, mifepristone has — what is it? — 26 years of safety data and is extremely safe and effective medication. I think that we cannot be setting this precedent where we are allowing religious or extremist organizations to be able to go to highly partisan, Trump-appointed judges and bring a case all the way up to the Supreme Court. I just really hope that they do the right thing. It’s unimaginable that this is where we are with the mifepristone case. We use this medication so much more safely than so many medications that you can buy over the counter. It’s an outrageous conversation that we’re having with this. But I am hoping that the right decision will be made, but it just goes to show how serious the consequences are when we have someone like Trump who is designing a highest court in the land for the people of this country. And we have to be so conscious of that and to work so hard to make sure that we are making better decisions in November.

AMY GOODMAN: Eva Burch, Democratic Arizona state senator, nurse practitioner, announced in her speech on the state Senate floor that she planned to get an abortion last week, to call attention to the restrictions she and others now face.

In Mississippi, six former sheriff’s deputies have been sentenced to between 10 and 40 years in prison for raiding a home and torturing, shooting and sexually abusing two Black men, Michael Jenkins and Eddie Parker, in January 2023. The six former deputies, all of whom are white, called themselves the “Goon Squad” and have been linked to at least four violent attacks on Black men since 2019. Two of the men attacked and tortured by the group subsequently died. To discuss the case and the verdict, we’re joined by Eddie Parker and attorneys Malik Shabazz and Trent Walker. “Never have we seen this many police officers sentenced to this kind of time in one week,” says Shabazz, who calls the verdict “historic.” Jenkins, Parker and Shabazz are currently suing the Rankin County Sheriff’s Department over its track record of civil rights violations and racist targeting of Black residents.

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman.

We end today’s show in Mississippi, where six former law enforcement officers have been sentenced to between 10 and 40 years in prison each for raiding a home and torturing two Black men. The officers, all of whom are white, belonged to a group that described itself as the “Goon Squad.”

In January of 2023, the six officers burst into a home, then beat, handcuffed, waterboarded and tasered Michael Corey Jenkins and Eddie Terrell Parker. The officers also sexually abused them with an object while shouting racial slurs. One of the officers put a gun in Jenkins’s mouth for a mock execution and pulled the trigger. The bullet lacerated his tongue, broke his jaw, exited through his neck. The officers then planted drugs at the scene in an attempt to cover up their act.

The attack occurred in the majority-white Rankin County, which is about 20 miles away from majority-Black Jackson, Mississippi. Some of the officers were also sentenced for their role in a separate assault just two weeks earlier, when another member of the Goon Squad repeatedly tased a man and put his genitals in his mouth. While the charges focused on these two cases, The New York Times and Mississippi Today have revealed that deputies in the Rankin County Sheriff’s Department have for decades barged into homes, handcuffed people, tortured them for information or confessions.

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a statement Thursday saying, quote, “The depravity of the crimes committed by these defendants cannot be overstated, and they will now spend between 10 and 40 years in prison for their heinous attack on citizens they had sworn to protect,” AG Merrick Garland said.

We go now to Jackson, Mississippi, where we’re joined by Eddie Parker, as well as his attorney Malik Shabazz, who is with Black Lawyers for Justice.

Malik Shabazz, let’s begin with you. Can you talk about the courtroom scene and the sentencing of these sheriff’s deputies and police officers for what they did?

MALIK SHABAZZ: Good morning to the Democracy Now! audience and Ms. Goodman.

The scene inside of this courtroom in the United States district court for the sentencing of the Goon Squad was absolutely incredible. And you wouldn’t believe it if it was a movie. I mean, to see the big, bad, intimidating, murderous Goon Squad, to see all of them there, to see all of them in court, crying tears out of their eyes and begging the judge, begging Eddie and Michael, in this packed room, was absolutely incredible. But it was well deserved, because so many other families and victims have had to shed those tears and go to jail for a long time behind their crimes and lies. I mean, Amy, it was absolutely incredible. And never have we seen this many police officers sentenced to this kind of time in one week. And it was awesome.

AMY GOODMAN: Malik Shabazz, talk about how this self-described Goon Squad operated.

MALIK SHABAZZ: OK. Well, they operate worse than criminals. I mean, they handcuff people, like they did to Eddie. When they handcuff, they don’t use warrants. They beat, they tase, they take their private parts out of their pants on another victim. They used dildos on Eddie and Michael, at least attempted to use them on Eddie and Michael. They waterboard, like U.S. troops did in Iraq. They put guns to heads, guns in mouths. They shoot in mouths. I mean, they are — everything you have ever heard that police may do, they did. They throw down guns. They carry throw-down guns. They plant guns. They steal videotapes.

And this is why they have received the longest and strongest sentences for any police brutality case in the history of the United States of America, and even the world. This week, the 132 years given to the Goon Squad defendants represent the longest criminal sentences ever given out, collectively and individually, to police officers in the history of the United States of America. And they deserve every day and hour of it.

AMY GOODMAN: Eddie Terrell Parker, your feelings in the courtroom, after having been so seriously brutalized and tortured, to see these officers put away for years?

EDDIE TERRELL PARKER: It was a moment in history. I mean, it was satisfying. I enjoyed every second of sitting and watching it all, you know, come to reality.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to turn to Michael Jenkins’ mother, Mary Jenkins, who earlier in the week spoke outside the federal courthouse in Jackson, Mississippi.

MARY JENKINS: When I first found out that my son was shot, and that he was shot in the mouth, I was almost certain that he was dead. I called Rankin County, and at first they wouldn’t let me speak with anyone. They said they were in a meeting. And when I finally spoke with someone, I asked him if my son was alive. And he said, “As far as I know.” I said, “When can I see him?” He said, “When we let you see him.” This is a crying mother on the phone trying to inquire about her son. He said, “Michael is our property.” That’s what that deputy told me on the phone. My son’s shot in the mouth, and he’s telling me that Michael is their property.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s Mary Jenkins, Michael Corey Jenkins’ mother. Malik Shabazz, will Michael Corey Jenkins and Eddie Terrell Parker also civilly sue for — not only personally these men, but, clearly, one of the things that their lawyers argued, the lawyers for the sheriff’s deputies and the officers, is that there was this permissive atmosphere that allowed them to operate in this way. Will they be suing the state or the city?

MALIK SHABAZZ: No, we are suing Rankin County and its Board of Supervisors and Sheriff Bryan Bailey, who was supposed to be running a department that supervised and monitored its officers. Unfortunately, during the sentencing hearings, it came out that Brett McAlpin, who is the chief investigative officer, which is similar to internal affairs — the criminals ran the department in Rankin. And that’s why they are facing a very large civil judgment and civil trial in this case. This is a pattern and practice of the Rankin County Police Department to routinely ignore constitutional rights violations.

I want to say one thing, and then I want you to hear from Mississippi attorney Trent Walker. He’s with me. He’s from Rankin. But Eddie Terrell Parker gave the most powerful victim’s testimony in these six days — I mean, these three days of sentencing these six defendants. He was very powerful. Mr. Mel Jenkins, Michael Jenkins’ father, was very influential in these hearings. But I would like you to hear a further answer on your question from Mississippi attorney Trent Walker, who is from Rankin County. Here he is.

TRENT WALKER: Good morning.

AMY GOODMAN: Hi, Trent Walker.

TRENT WALKER: Hello.

AMY GOODMAN: If you can — go ahead. If you can talk about the significance of what’s happened? And does this open up hundreds of cases, going back decades?

TRENT WALKER: It should open up hundreds of cases, going back decades, anything that these six have touched, in point of fact, given the testimony that they themselves gave. And they used terms like there was a “culture of violence.” More than one of them said that, and that violence and brutality was expected for you to work on the night shift, which they did not refer to as the night shift. They talked about it as the “Goon Squad shift.” And so, yes, anything that they touched should go back, be reexamined, and really, just as a matter of course, overturn, because when you find that they’re willing to plant evidence and falsify reports — you know, they had Michael Jenkins charged with aggravated assault on a police officer and with possession of drugs. Michael could have been sentenced to up to 38 years in prison. And as a criminal law practitioner in Rankin County, I can tell you, he would not have been slapped on the wrist, and he would have served many years in prison for those charges that they falsified and put on him.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to go to U.S. Attorney Darren LaMarca speaking last year, announcing the federal charges against the former officers for the attack.

DARREN LAMARCA: These defendants committed heinous acts of violence against handcuffed victims when they terrorized under color of law. As reflected in the informations unsealed today, these men sexually abused their victims, repeatedly tased them, tortured them, all under the authority of the badge, which they disgraced. … But not only did they brazenly commit these acts, but after inflicting serious bodily injury by firing a shot through one of the victims’ mouths, they left him lying in a pool of blood, gathered on the porch of the house to discuss how to cover it up. What indifference. What disregard for life.

AMY GOODMAN: So, I’m wondering if either Trent Walker or Malik Shabazz can talk about the state charges, also federal charges, what this means. We’re talking about officers sentenced not only for the attack that we’re describing today on Michael Corey Jenkins and Eddie Terrell Parker, but for two weeks before, when they barged into someone’s home. I think this was Dedmon. And how has he been described? The judge said he committed the most “shocking, brutal and cruel acts imaginable.” Attorney Shabazz, you’ve described Dedmon as “oppressive” and “sick.” Talk about these acts that you know about that they did, that they were sentenced for in addition to the case of Michael and Eddie.

MALIK SHABAZZ: Well, about a month before, they had targeted a person named [Alan] Schmidt. And [Alan] Schmidt allegedly had offended Dedmon because he had allegedly stolen something from one of Dedmon’s friends. So, the Goon Squad gangsters, they had his tag, and they had the tag tracers, and they had an order out. They had an order out that if they found him driving anywhere, without any probable cause to stop him, that they were going to stop him and deal with him.

They found him one night. They called Dedmon, who came, off duty, on duty. And then Dedmon, who was on this night shift — now, I want to remind you that according to the sentencing hearings, you could not work the night shift in Rankin County Sheriff’s Department without being a part of the Goon Squad. And overall, you could not rise or be promoted into the Rankin County Sheriff’s Department without participating in violence and being violent at night with the Goon Squad. And every one of the defendants said that they were doing OK in their careers until they were inducted into this gang called the Goon Squad. OK?

So, Dedmon himself — it’s so much sickness here. But any officer who you see that will whip out his private parts and attempt to put it in the mouth of a defendant —

TRENT WALKER: On the side of the interstate.

MALIK SHABAZZ: — on the side of the road, take his gun out, shoot it by the side of his head to make him believe he’s going to be killed, pull his pants down while handcuffed — this came out in court — pulled the man’s pants down while handcuffed, grabbed his genitals, told him how — the size of his genitals, then dry humped him. I say that it came out in court that Dedmon dry humped the man after they took him to a private house in another jurisdiction. I mean, you wouldn’t believe it if you saw it in a movie, but I’m imagining it will be that one day. But, you know, in Mississippi —

AMY GOODMAN: Well —

MALIK SHABAZZ: I must give — I’ve got to say this. We have a Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, that is headed by a Black woman, and Kristen Clarke takes her job seriously. And her Southern Division attorneys have pursued and made history in this area. And Judge Thomas Lee — they thought that Judge Thomas Lee down here in Mississippi would not do justice. And, oh, how he has set a standard and put police officers on notice all over America that if you do the crime, you’re going to do the time, just like anybody else.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, I just want to say, Eddie Terrell Parker, you and Michael Corey Jenkins, amazingly brave in coming forward and describing what happened to you, which seems to have broken open all of these investigations right now. I want to thank civil rights attorney Malik Shabazz and Trent Walker with Black Lawyers for Justice and Eddie Parker, who was tortured by the Goon Squad. Thank you so much, joining us from Jackson, Mississippi.

And that does it for our show. Very happy belated birthday to Tami Woronoff. I’m Amy Goodman. Our website is democracynow.org. Thanks so much for joining us.

Three of the leading U.S. manufacturers of medical-grade nitrogen gas said this week that they will not allow their products to be used in executions, a move that came after Louisiana approved the controversial capital punishment method recently used to kill an Alabama prisoner who appeared to be in agony before he died.

Airgas—owned by the French company Air Liquide—along with Air Products, and Matheson Gas toldThe Guardian that they are banning the use of their nitrogen gas products in the previously untested execution method used to cause death by hypoxia, or deprivation of oxygen to vital tissues.

Veterinarians consider nitrogen gas unethical for euthanizing animals and United Nations human rights experts have asserted that the execution technique may violate international anti-torture law.

"Airgas has not, and will not, supply nitrogen or other inert gases to induce hypoxia for the purpose of human execution," the company said.

Matheson Gas told The Guardian that use of its products in executions is "not consistent with our company values," while Air Products told the U.K.-based newspaper that it has established "prohibited end uses for our products, which includes the use of any of our industrial gas products for the intentional killing of any person (including nitrogen hypoxia)."

Four states—Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Oklahoma—have approved nitrogen gas for use in executions. Last week, Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry, a Republican, signed legislation passed by the GOP-controlled state Legislature expanding execution methods to include the electric chair and nitrogen hypoxia. This, despite the agonizing execution in January of 58-year-old Kenneth Smith, who was killed by the state of Alabama by nitrogen hypoxia on January 25 after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected his last-ditch appeal.

Rev. Jeff Hood, a spiritual adviser to U.S. death row inmates, witnessed Smith's killing, which he described as "horrific and cruel." Hood and other witnesses said Smith convulsed violently for several minutes while he was strapped to a gurney and forced to breathe nitrogen gas through a mask. Even prison guards were taken by surprise as the gurney shook and Smith struggled for his life.

Alabama officials had claimed that nitrogen hypoxia is "perhaps the most humane method of execution ever devised."

States have sought alternative means of killing condemned prisoners—including nitrogen gas and firing squads—ever since the European Union banned the sale and export of lethal injection drugs in 2011.

Maya Foa, co-executive director of the anti-death penalty group Reprieve, told The Guardian that "drug manufacturers don't want their medicines diverted and misused in torturous executions and the makers of nitrogen gas share the same objection: They do not want their products to be used to kill."

"States which claim that the lethal injection or gas inhalation are 'humane' methods of execution are merely seeking to mask what it means for a state to forcibly put someone to death," Foa added. "The makers of these products see through the lie and naturally want nothing to do with it."