U.S. SUPREME COURT - Louisiana Abortion Law Case

"What’s at stake in Supreme Court’s Louisiana abortion law case" PBS NewsHour 3/4/2020

Another attempt of imposing a religious belief on others by using statuary law which IS NOT freedom of religion.

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a case about access to abortion doctors in Louisiana.  The law in question is similar to a Texas one struck down by the Court in 2016 -- but decided by a different group of justices.  Lisa Desjardins talks to the National Law Journal’s Marcia Coyle and Mary Ziegler, professor and author of “Abortion and the Law in America: Roe v. Wade to the Present.”

TRUMP AGENDA - Slashing Family Planning

aka "Trump's Anti-Women Agenda"

"Judges weigh Trump’s family planning funding rule" PBS NewsHour 9/23/2019

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  A panel of appellate judges on Monday considered whether a Trump administration rule on federal funding for clinics that make abortion referrals may remain in place while legal challenges work their way through the courts.  More than 900 clinics, many run by Planned Parenthood, have given up funds rather than complying with the new regulations.  John Yang talks to Sarah Varney of Kaiser Health News.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 6/29/2018

"Shields and Brooks on Trump’s Supreme Court politics, Ocasio-Cortez’s primary upset" PBS NewsHour 6/29/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including the retirement and legacy of Justice Anthony Kennedy, a shocking Democratic victory in Queens, and the continued fallout over the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” immigration policy and family separation.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  And now to the analysis of Shields and Brooks.  That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Gentlemen, welcome.

Big news, the equivalent of an earthquake, I guess, in Washington, political earthquake.

Mark, what does it mean that Anthony Kennedy is stepping down from the Supreme Court?  What does it mean for the court?  What does it mean for the city, for the country?

Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:  It’s significant.

(LAUGHTER)

Mark Shields:  No, let me just say, God likes Donald Trump, because she has now given him a second appointee to the Supreme Court, something that Barack Obama, in eight years, got two.  Bill Clinton in eight years got two.  George W. Bush in eight years got two.  He’s getting two in 18 months.

Anthony Kennedy is getting encomiums of praise, in large part, Judy, two sources.  One, he was a gentleman.  He was considerate to those around him.  He didn’t — there was no personalizing or polarizing to him.  And that is welcome and refreshing in this Washington.

But the second thing is, he was a liberal on individual rights and sort of social issues.  He wasn’t on economic issues.  He always came down on the side of corporations against consumers and the side of the employer against — the boss.

And he wrote probably the worst opinion, in my judgment, in the history of American politics, the campaign — permitting corporations to make unlimited campaign contributions, and allowing the gushing of water — of money into campaigns.

But he will — he has been a key vote on capital punishment, on a whole host of issues, including gay marriage and ratifying Roe v. Wade.  So, in that sense, the nominee will be to the right of him, and it will perhaps energize Republicans who were not energized about 2018.

Judy Woodruff:  How do you see his legacy first?

David Brooks, New York Times:  Well, first, it struck me that a lot of my progressive friends are reacting like losing Kennedy is like losing, I don’t know, Franklin Roosevelt.

Like, suddenly, they’re all on his side, which is odd to me, because, in most of his decisions, Citizens United and Bush v. Gore, he voted very solidly with the conservatives.

But it shows the prominence of two issues for progressives, which is abortion and gay marriage, and it shows how the social issues really are what motivate people these days.

I would say I would characterize him as a pragmatic libertarian, tended to emphasize individual rights and freedoms.  And so sometimes that went a little — a lot of time, it went a little right.  Sometimes, it went a little left.  But it tended to be an individualistic mind-set, which had some good virtues.

I thought it — in general, it weakened any sense of community, any of sense of, we have a shared nation, because his world view was so individualistic.

Nonetheless, he was just a very cordial man, a very good man to be around in Washington, an exemplar of an old style public servant.

As for the politics, I agree with Mark.  It’s just a total gift for Republicans.  It will unify the right.  It will energize the right.  It will energize the left, too, but more — in the coming campaign, it puts pressure on the people in the middle.

And so Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins on the Republican side, it puts some pressure on them, but I don’t think a whole lot.  They voted for Gorsuch.

Mark Shields:  Gorsuch, that’s right.

David Brooks:  But it puts a bunch of pressure on the centrist Democrats who are running in the red states.  And I think puts more pressure on the Democrats than it does on the Republicans.

(CROSSTALK)

Mark Shields:  Yes, I agree with David.

Joe Manchin in West Virginia, who I think has to be favored for reelection, as a Democrat in a state, Donald Trump’s best state, he won by 42 percent, that is going to be a difficult vote for him, especially if Mitch McConnell, in all likelihood, holds the vote around Halloween to keep attention riveted on the issue.

Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota, a state that Donald Trump carried by 36 percent, Democratic incumbent.  Joe Donnelly in Indiana that he carried by 17 percent.  And Claire McCaskill in Missouri that Donald Trump carried by 19 percent.  It’s going to be a lot of political pressure for them.

Judy, the key to me is, this is a bigger issue, the Supreme Court has been, for conservatives and Republicans than it has been historically for Democrats.

For example, in the exit polls in 2016, the Clinton-Trump race, 26 percent of the Republican voters said the Supreme Court and who sat on it was an urgent vote matter to them, to the point that it affected and influenced their votes.  Only 18 percent of Democrats said it was for them.

So, it’s a built-in emotional advantage at a time when Republican enthusiasm and interest in the 2018 campaign has been sapping and had been draining.

David Brooks:  That may — I wonder if that will change now because this pick obviously puts Roe v. Wade right at the center of our politics.

And it will actually open up something very interesting.  I don’t think it’s — the nightmare scenario on either side, I don’t think it’s probably going to happen.

Mark Shields:  Which is?  What is…

David Brooks:  Which is that Roe v. Wade will suddenly be overturned.

Judy Woodruff:  Yes.

David Brooks:  Because there is a precedent which Secretary — Justice Roberts has maintained through most of the terms — and the Obamacare case is a good example — of saying, I may agree, I may not agree, but what is settled law is settled law.

He has tended to be biased in that direction.  And as we go through the hearings, whoever the nominee is, that’s what they are going to say.  And so they may disagree in principle on Roe v. Wade, but it is — it’s reasonably settled, so they may hedge it or something.  But it — I’m not sure we’re looking at some massive overturn of Roe v.  Wade either way.

Judy Woodruff:  But neither one of you sees any hindrance, anything standing in front of the President getting his choice for the court?

Mark Shields:  Sure, the choice himself.

We have had nominees rejected before because of something that was discovered or and their position.

I would just take one exception to David, and that is, over the last generation, Gallup has polled every single year.  Americans have more — far more tolerant and far less censorious about having a child out of wedlock, or gay rights, or extramarital relations.

But moral acceptability of abortion remains divided exactly where it was 25 years ago.  So it is an organizing and galvanizing issue still to this day, even though I think David’s right that the status quo or precedent works to the advantage of those who would preserve it.

But how about it if it becomes the central issue in the campaign of 2018?  Does that help the Democrats or not?  Does it turn out Republicans who might not have — who might have sat home?

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 5/18/2018

"Shields and Brooks on Jerusalem embassy conflict, Mueller investigation takeaways" PBS NewsHour 5/18/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including a forthcoming rule from the Trump administration on family planning, the opening of the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem and the deadly protests along the Israel-Gaza border, plus what we know about the Russia investigation, one year on.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  Now back to political developments, both here in the United States and beyond, with the analysis of Shields and Brooks.  That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Welcome, gentlemen.  We haven’t all three been together in a little while.  It’s great to see you.

Let’s start, Mark, with the story we led off as a segment earlier, and that is the administration moving to close down, essentially, or close funding for clinics that either provide abortion services or refer women to clinics that do.

It’s the early phases of this, but it’s something the Trump administration seems determined to do.

MARK SHIELDS, syndicated columnist:  Determined, Judy, to make a political issue out of.

I think that Donald Trump, if I’m not recalling — recalling correctly, as a candidate, made the issuing of executive orders by Barack Obama something noxious, pernicious and to be avoided.

That was when Obama did issue executive orders, obviously.  We had Republicans controlling both houses of Congress.  Donald Trump has both houses of Congress in his party.  He tried and Republicans did unsuccessfully in their attempts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, to defund completely Planned Parenthood, and to achieve these objectives.

Now he’s moving — all of these occurrences, I hate to sound cynical, happened to occur in an election year, not simply with President Obama, but it did with President Clinton, with President Obama, with President Trump.  It did with President Bush.  And it began with President Reagan.

The one person who had clean political hands in this was Richard Nixon, who in 1971, invoked Title X, and to provide health care and to provide family planning advice to poor women who couldn’t afford it.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  So it’s become a political football.  Is that what we’re talking about here?

DAVID BROOKS, New York Times:  Yes, I’m not sure I totally agree with that.

It has an election year — it has obvious political benefits for each party’s base, but for Ronald Reagan, I’m pretty sure it was probably a sincere belief that taxpayers shouldn’t be paying for abortions.  For Bill Clinton, it was probably a completely sincere belief that this is a program should be longstanding.

I’m not sure where Donald Trump actually stands in his heart of hearts on this issue.  I do know he has made a deal with social conservatives that you’re going to have put up with a lot of lies and payoffs to adult film actresses, but I’m going to give you — on policy, you will get — and he’s been very consistent on giving social conservatives policy victories.

This is something they have wanted for a long time.  And Donald Trump is handing it to them.  And so a lot of social conservatives who are willing to swallow his personal failures are going to feel vindicated that this was a deal worth making.

I don’t particularly agree with that, but I think social conservatives will say, yes, if we’re going to get wins like this, which are for, in their case, for the good of the country and for the good of humanity, they’re willing to swallow a lot from Donald Trump.

MARK SHIELDS:  I’m not questioning the sincerity of all involved.

I do — their motives — but I think there is a strong political element to it.  And it has to be noted of Planned Parenthood, while it provides cancer screening, all sorts of health care, it does provide also 330,000 abortions a year.  So it’s a major element in the — in abortion-providing.

DAVID BROOKS:  Yes.  The tradeoff here is that Planned Parenthood, which does a lot of all sorts of health stuff, also does the abortions.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  An array of services.

DAVID BROOKS:  And so you get — say you’re a social conservative.

You get what you want on the abortion.  It’s going to be harder to get an abortion and some of them will get less funding.  But in places where they have done this — and we have now seen what happens when you do this — when you take people away from Planned Parenthood, you also — you do see a sharp rise in pregnancies, because contraception isn’t prescribed as much.

You see some health — deleterious health benefits down the side.  So, on the plus side, people who really find abortion morally abhorrent don’t have to pay for it.  On the minus side, there are negative health effects.
-----
JUDY WOODRUFF:  An anniversary this week.  We have only got a couple of minutes left.

But, David, Robert Mueller started his Russia investigation a year ago this week.  Where are we after a year of that?  Of course, it’s all been behind closed doors.  We have seen indictments.  We have seen some pleas.  Where does it stand?

DAVID BROOKS:  Well, we have had a year of speculation about what is about to happen.

What we have learned is that it’s a pretty broad-ranging investigation.  There’s a lot of dirty businesses, a lot of guilty pleas already, a lot of people brought under indictment.  So it’s a real investigation, investigating what looks like real crimes.

As for the collusion charge, we know there were many more meetings between the Trump people and the Russians than we thought before.  There was a meeting in Trump Tower.  And so there’s clearly more smoke there than we knew before a year ago.

What we don’t have is actual evidence of real collusion, and particularly by an awareness of the President himself.  That may be still out there, but that part, we still don’t have.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  And we know he may be pursuing other charges as well.

DAVID BROOKS:  Right.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Mark, how do you see it?

MARK SHIELDS:  What we do know, Judy, is that the Senate Intelligence Committee is composed of grownups and led by Senator Burr and Senator Warner, and they deserve credit.

The House Intelligence Committee is led by just outrageous adolescents who are about as deep as a birdbath.

At the same time, I think what we learned is that the defense of Donald Trump, led by himself and Rudy Giuliani, is to savage and torment, denigrate, vilify and libel Bob Mueller.

Bob Mueller happens to be an American who turned down an eight-figure income to be a major corporate lawyer, instead became a public servant.  He’s a man who volunteered and carries the wounds of battle from having been a Marine platoon leader in Vietnam.  He is a public servant.

He has not said a word.  He has not given an interview.  He has not leaked to anybody.  And he stands vilified by Trump and Giuliani and their cohorts and their outriders.

It is indefensible.  And they are trying to exact the same damage upon the Justice Department of the country, the FBI and this country that Joe McCarthy did on the State Department, which has never fully recovered from his libelous attacks.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Twenty seconds.

DAVID BROOKS:  Yes, I don’t disagree with that.

I would just say, I observe politically, I do think if Trump fired Mueller tomorrow, the Republican Party would back him.

MARK SHIELDS:  Do you really?

DAVID BROOKS:  Because I think FOX News has created a predicate.  They have done thousands of surveys and investigations about Mueller as a political operative.

TRUMP AGENDA - Gaging Health Choices

A "March to Theocracy" report.

"Impact of ‘global gag rule’ goes beyond abortion for these health groups in Kenya" PBS NewsHour 12/19/2017

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The so-called global gag rule, which cuts off some U.S. government aid to health agencies that offer or mention abortion services, has been reinstated by every Republican president going back to Reagan.  But the Trump administration has gone much further, cutting all funding to groups that offer vital health care services in places like Kenya.  Special correspondent Fred de Sam Lazaro has the story.