Connect with us

Published

on

The next front is rapidly emerging in the struggle between supporters and opponents of legal abortion, and that escalating conflict is increasing the chances that the issue will shape the 2024 election as it did last Novembers midterm contest.

President Joe Biden triggered the new confrontation with a flurry of recent moves to expand access to the drugs used in medication abortions, which now account for more than half of all abortions performed in the United States. Medication abortion involves two drugs: mifepristone followed by misoprostol (which is also used to prevent stomach ulcers). Although abortion opponents question the drugs safety, multiple scientific studies have found few serious adverse effects beyond headache or cramping.

Federal regulation of the use and distribution of these drugs by agencies including the FDA and the United States Postal Service has long been overshadowed in the abortion debate by the battles over Supreme Court nominations and federal legislation to ban or authorize abortion nationwide. But with a conservative majority now entrenched in the Court, and little chance that Congress will pass national legislation in either direction any time soon, abortion supporters and opponents are focusing more attention on executive-branch actions that influence the availability of the pills.

Read: The abortion backup plan no one is talking about

The reality of abortion care has been changing very, very rapidly, and now the politics are catching up with it, Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster who served as one of Bidens advisers in 2020, told me.

Tens of thousands of anti-abortion activists will descend on Washington today for their annual March for Lifethe first since the Supreme Court last summer overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that established a nationwide right to abortion. The activists will cheer the swift moves by some two dozen Republican-controlled states to ban or severely restrict abortion since the Court struck down Roe.

But even as abortion opponents celebrate, they are growing more frustrated about the increased reliance on the drugs, which are now used in 54 percent of U.S. abortionsup dramatically from less than one-third less than a decade ago, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights. With the overturning of Roe, [with] COVID, and with President Bidens loosening of the restrictions on these [drugs] there is a new frontier that everyone is pivoting to, Rebecca Parma, the legislative director for Texas Right to Life, a prominent anti-abortion group, told me.

George W. Bush and Donald Trump, the two Republicans who have held the presidency since the drugs were first approved under Democratic President Bill Clinton, in 2000, took virtually no steps to limit their availability. But conservative activists are already signaling that they will press the Republican presidential candidates in 2024 for more forceful action.

Our job is to make sure this becomes an issue that any GOP candidate will have to answer and address, Kristan Hawkins, the president of the anti-abortion group Students for Life of America, told me. No one can be ambivalent again; it will simply not be an option.

The challenge for Republicans is that the 2022 midterm elections sent an unmistakable signal of resistance to further abortion restrictions in almost all of the key swing states that tipped the 2020 presidential election and are likely to decide the 2024 contest. Would you really want to be Ron DeSantis or Donald Trump running in a close election saying, Im going to ban all abortion pills in Michigan or Pennsylvania right now? says Mary Ziegler, a law professor at UC Davis, who has written extensively on the history of the abortion debate.

Sunday is the 50th anniversary of the original Roe decision, and the Biden administration will mark the occasion with a defiant pro-abortion-rights speech from Vice President Kamala Harris in Florida, where GOP Governor DeSantis, a likely 2024 presidential contender, signed a 15-week abortion ban last April.

White House officials see access to abortion medication as the next battlefront in the larger struggle over the procedure, Jennifer Klein, the director of the White House Gender Policy Council, told me. She said she expects Republicans to mount more sweeping efforts to restrict access to the drugs than they did during the Bush or Trump presidencies. The reason youve seen both Democratic and Republican administrations ensure access to medication abortions is because this is the FDA following their evidence-based scientific judgment, she said. So what I think is different now is you are seeing some pretty extreme actions as the next way to double down on taking away reproductive health and reproductive rights.

Federal regulation of the abortion drugs has followed a consistent pattern, with Democratic presidents moving to expand access and Republican presidents mostly accepting those actions.

Read: The other abortion pill

During the 2000 presidential campaign, for instance, George W. Bush called the Clinton administrations initial approval of mifepristone wrong and said he worried it would lead to more abortions. But over Bushs two terms, his three FDA commissioners ignored a citizen petition from conservative groups to revoke approval for the drug. Under Barack Obama, the FDA formalized relatively onerous rules for the use of mifepristone. Physicians had to obtain a special certification to prescribe the drug, women had to meet with their doctor once before receiving it and twice after, and it could be used only within the first seven weeks of pregnancy.

The FDA loosened these restrictions during Obamas final year in office. It reduced the number of physician visits required to obtain the drugs from three to one and increased to 10 the number of weeks into a pregnancy the drugs could be used. The revisions also permitted other medical professionals, such as nurses, to prescribe the drugs if they received certification, and eliminated a requirement for providers to report adverse effects other than death. Trump didnt reverse any of the Obama decisions. He did side with conservatives by fighting a lawsuit from abortion-rights advocates to lift the requirement for an in-person doctors visit to obtain the drugs during the COVID pandemic. But by the time the Supreme Court ruled for the Trump administration in January 2021, Biden was days away from taking office. Within months, women seeking an abortion could consult with a doctor via telehealth and then receive the pills via mail.

On January 3 of this year, the FDA took another major step by allowing pharmacies to dispense the drugs. In late December, the Justice Department issued a legal opinion that the Postal Service could deliver the drugs without violating the 19th-century Comstock Act, which bars use of the mail to corrupt the public morals.

The paradox is that the impact of these rules, for now, will be felt almost entirely in the states where abortion remains legal. Obtaining abortion pills there will be much more comparable to filling any other prescription. But 19 red states have passed laws that still require medical professionals to be present when the drugs are administered, which prevents pharmacies from offering them despite the FDA authorization. And although the FDA has approved use of mifepristone for the first 10 weeks of pregnancy, medical professionals cannot prescribe the drugs in violation of state time limits (or absolute bans) on abortion. In terms of anti-abortion states, the Biden administrations actions have had basically no impact, Greer Donley, a University of Pittsburgh law professor who studies abortion law, told me in an email.

Although the red states have largely walled themselves off from Bidens efforts on medication abortion, conservatives have launched a multifront attempt to roll back access to the pills nationwide. Students for Life has filed another citizen petition with the FDA, arguing that doctors who prescribe the drugs must dispose of any fetal remains as meical waste. In a joint letter released last week, 22 Republican attorneys general hinted that they may sue to overturn the new FDA rules permitting pharmacies to dispense the drugs. In November, another coalition of conservative groups filed a lawsuit before a Trump-appointed judge in Texas seeking to overturn the original certification and ban mifepristone. Jenny Ma, the senior counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights, says that decision could ultimately have a broader effect than even the Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe: This case, she told me, could effectively ban medication abortion nationwide. It means people in every state may not be able to get abortion pills.

Republicans will also ramp up legislative action against the pills, although their proposals have no chance of becoming law while Democrats control the Senate and Biden holds the veto pen. Republican Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi is planning to reintroduce her SAVE Moms and Babies Act, which would restore the prohibition against dispensing abortion drugs through the mail or at pharmacies.

From the May 2022 issue: The future of abortion in a post-Roe America

However these legal and legislative challenges are resolved, its already apparent that the 2024 GOP presidential field will face more pressure than before to propose executive-branch actions against the drugs. Thats going to be our clarion call in 2024, says Kristi Hamrick, a long-term social-conservative activist, who now serves as the chief strategist for media and policy at Students for Life.

Katie Glenn, the state-policy director at Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, told me that, at the least, the group wants 2024 Republican presidential candidates to press for restoring the requirement to report adverse consequences from the drugs. Former Vice President Mike Pence, a likely candidate, has already suggested that he will support a ban on dispensing the pills through the mail. But the anti-abortion movements long-term goal remains the same: ban mifepristone altogether. Hawkins shows the growing fervor GOP candidates will face when she says, This pill is a cancer that has now metastasized throughout our country.

Simultaneously, abortion-rights advocates are pushing the Biden administration to loosen restrictions even further. Medication abortion has been overregulated for far too long, Ma told me. Many advocates want the FDA to extend permitted use of mifepristone from 10 to 12 weeks, eliminate the requirement that the professionals prescribing the drugs receive a special certification, and begin the process toward eventually making the drug available over the counter.

The immediate question is whether the Biden administration will challenge the red-state laws that have stymied its efforts to expand access. Advocates have argued that a legal case can be made for national FDA regulations to trump state restrictions, such as the requirement for physicians to dispense the drugs. But Biden is likely to proceed cautiously.

We dont have a lot of answers because, frankly, states have not tried to do this stuff in hundreds of years, Ziegler, the author of the upcoming book Roe: The History of a National Obsession, told me. Even so, she added, its a reasonable assumption that this conservative-dominated Supreme Court would resist allowing the federal government to preempt state rules on how the drugs are dispensed.

These mirror-image pressures in each party increase the odds of a clear distinction between Biden (or another Democrat) and the 2024 GOP nominee over access to the drugs. Democrats are generally confident they will benefit from almost any contrast that keeps abortion prominent in the 2024 race. Some, like Lake, see access to the pills as a powerful lever to do that. The issue, she argues, is relevant to younger voters, who are much more familiar than older people with the growing use of medication abortion and are especially dubious that pharmacies can offer certain drugs in some states but not in others.

The impact of abortion on the 2022 election was more complex than is often discussed. As Ive written, in the red states that have banned or restricted the practice, such as Florida, Ohio, and Texas, there was no discernible backlash against the Republican governors or state legislators who passed those laws. But the story was different in the blue and purple states where abortion remains legal. In pivotal states including Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, a clear majority of voters said they supported abortion rights, and, according to media exit polls, crushing majorities of them voted against Republican gubernatorial candidates who pledged to restrict abortion. Those Democratic victories in the states likely to prove decisive again in 2024 have left many Republican strategists leery of pursuing any further constraints on abortion.

Whats clear now is that even as abortion opponents gather to celebrate their long-sought toppling of Roe, many of them wont be satisfied until they have banned the procedure nationwide. It is totally unacceptable for a presidential candidate to say, Its just up to the states now, Marilyn Musgrave, the vice president for government affairs at the Susan B. Anthony group, told me. We need a federal role clearly laid out by these presidential candidates. Equally clear is that abortion opponents now view federal regulatory actions to restrict, and eventually ban, abortion drugs as a crucial interim step on that path. The U.S. may seem in some ways to be settling into an uneasy new equilibrium, with abortion banned in some states and permitted in others. But, as the escalating battle over abortion medication makes clear, access to abortion in every state will remain on the ballot in 2024.

Continue Reading

Sports

Cindric docked points, fined for spinning Dillon

Published

on

By

Cindric docked points, fined for spinning Dillon

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Austin Cindric was docked 50 points and fined $50,000 by NASCAR on Wednesday for intentionally spinning Ty Dillon in last weekend’s Cup Series race at Circuit of the Americas.

Dillon moved Cindric up the track early in the race and Cindric quickly retaliated by hooking Dillon in the right rear, spinning Dillon’s car.

NASCAR has made clear they will not tolerate drivers hooking competitors in the right rear to spin them because of the potential hazards. Bubba Wallace and Chase Elliott have both previously been suspended for similar actions.

The penalty drops Cindric of Team Penske from 11th to 35th in the standings heading into this weekend’s race at Phoenix Raceway.

NASCAR fined Carson Hocevar $50,000 and penalized him 25 points for intentionally wrecking Harrison Burton last year. Hocevar hooked Burton in the right rear while under caution at Nashville Superspeedway.

One of the reasons Cindric was not suspended, per a NASCAR official, is because it happened on a road course with lower speeds and tight confines — and the result didn’t draw a caution flag.

Wallace and Elliott both hooked other drivers on ovals with higher speeds that led to cautions.

In additional penalties announced Wednesday, NASCAR said two members of Kyle Larson‘s pit crew had been suspended two races for a tire coming off his car during last weekend’s Cup race at COTA. Brandon Johnson, the jackman, and front tire changer Blaine Anderson were both suspended.

Continue Reading

Sports

Briscoe wins appeal over spoiler at Daytona 500

Published

on

By

Briscoe wins appeal over spoiler at Daytona 500

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Chase Briscoe and Joe Gibbs Racing won their appeal Wednesday when the National Motorsports Appeals Panel said his Toyota did not have an illegally modified spoiler when he won the Daytona 500 pole.

The victory restores the 100 points and 10 playoff points NASCAR had penalized Briscoe for the spoiler violation. The team also gets its 100 points and 10 playoff points back, and crew chief James Small’s four-race suspension was rescinded, as was the $100,000 fine to the team.

Briscoe is now tied for 14th in the season standings with Carson Hocevar headed into Sunday’s race at Phoenix Raceway. They are one point ahead of Kyle Larson, who is 16th in the season standings.

“The panel believes that the elongation of some of the holes on the number 19 Cup car spoiler base is caused by the process of attaching that specific spoiler base to the rear deck and not modification of the single source part,” the panel wrote.

Joe Gibbs said he was appreciative of the process “NASCAR has in place that allowed us the opportunity to present our explanation of what led to the penalty issued to our No. 19 team.

“We are thankful for the consideration and ruling by the National Motorsports Appeals Panel,” the team owner added. “It is obviously great news for our 19 team and everyone at Joe Gibbs Racing. We look forward to focusing on the remainder of our season starting this weekend in Phoenix.”

Briscoe also thanked the panel and NASCAR on social media “for giving us the option to show our evidence.” He also thanked Joe Gibbs Racing for preparing his car for his debut season with the team.

The appeals panel consisted of former motorsports marketing executive Dixon Johnston, former Speed Channel president Hunter Nickell and former South Boston Speedway general manager Cathy Rice.

Continue Reading

Sports

NASCAR countersues in dispute over charters

Published

on

By

NASCAR countersues in dispute over charters

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — NASCAR’s revenue-sharing charter system is under threat of being disbanded according to a Wednesday counterclaim filed by the stock car series against Michael Jordan-owned 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports that singles out Jordan’s longtime business manager.

The contentiousness began after more than two years of negotiations on new charter agreements — NASCAR’s equivalent of a franchise model — and the 30-page filing contends that Jordan business manager Curtis Polk “willfully” violated antitrust laws by orchestrating anticompetitive collective conduct in connection with the most recent charter agreements.

23XI and Front Row were the only two organizations out of 15 that refused to sign the new agreements, which were presented to the teams last September in a take-it-or-leave-it offer a mere 48 hours before the start of NASCAR’s playoffs.

The charters were fought for by the teams ahead of the 2016 season and twice have been extended. The latest extension is for seven years to match the current media rights deal and guarantee 36 of the 40 spots in each week’s field to the teams that hold them, as well as other financial incentives. 23XI and Front Row refused to sign and sued, alleging NASCAR and the France family that owns the stock car series are a monopoly.

NASCAR already has lost one round in court in which the two teams have been recognized as chartered organizations for the 2025 season as the legal dispute winds through the courts.

What is NASCAR counterclaiming?

In the new counterclaim, Polk is repeatedly singled out as the ringleader against the current charter proposals. NASCAR attorney Christopher Yates went so far as to tell The Associated Press that Polk, who in addition to being Jordan’s business manager is a co-owner of 23XI along with three-time Daytona 500 winner Denny Hamlin, does not understand the NASCAR business model.

“Curtis Polk basically orchestrated and threatened a boycott of one of the qualifying races for a major event and others did not go along with him,” Yates said. “He got other teams to boycott a meeting that was required by the charter. When you have a threatened boycott of qualifying races that are covered by media that’s not a good thing for other race teams, not a good thing when you are trying to collectively grow the sport.”

The qualifying race in question was the 2024 pair of 150-mile duels that set the field for the Daytona 500.

“I don’t think Mr. Polk really understands the sport,” Yates told the AP. “I think he came into it and his view is it should be much more like the NBA or other league sports. But it’s not. No motorsport is like that. He’s done a lot of things that might work in the NBA or might be OK in the NBA but just are not appropriate in NASCAR.”

Who is violating the antitrust act?

NASCAR’s complaint alleges “the undisputed reality is that it is 23XI and FRM, led by 23XI’s owner and sports agent Curtis Polk, that willfully violated the antitrust laws by orchestrating anticompetitive collective conduct in connection with the terms of the 2025 Charter Agreements.”

“It is truly ironic that in trying to blow-up the Charter system, 23XI and FRM have sought to weaponize the antitrust laws to achieve their goals,” the counterclaim says, alleging Polk’s threats are “attempting to misuse the legal system as a last resort to secure new terms.”

Bob Jenkins, an entrepreneur, owns Front Row Motorsports and joined 23XI in the lawsuit when he declined to sign the 2025 charter agreement last September.

NASCAR’s counterclaim asks for an injunction eliminating guaranteed starting spots for charter teams. NASCAR wants the four combined charters held by 23XI and Front Row before the lawsuit to be returned to NASCAR, and it wants to dissolve the two charters each team purchased ahead of the 2025 season for their own individual expansion.

“There’s a misperception out there that somehow 23IX and Front Row might achieve something that other teams can take advantage of, and that’s just not right,” Yates told the AP. “This is not going to be a renegotiation. NASCAR has no intent of renegotiating the terms of the charter. Front Row and 23XI are threatening the charter system and its continuation, and NASCAR is fine without the charter system.

“The charter system was created at the request of the teams. That was before 23XI and Curtis Polk’s time, I don’t think they understand that history. But if they succeed with their lawsuit and the charter system goes away, that’s OK.”

What do 23XI and Front Row want?

Yates told the AP he’s asked Jeffrey Kessler, the attorney representing 23XI and Front Row, what is it the two teams want and cannot get a straight answer.

“The mere fact that the lawsuit calls the system into question, I really think 23XI and Front Row are being pretty selfish in terms of what they are trying to do, and I don’t think they are taking into account the 32 teams that have signed the charters and think it is a good deal for them,” Yates said. “Do some of them think they should have gotten more? I’m sure. Does NASCAR think it should have gotten more? Absolutely. But NASCAR does not see the charter system as necessary.”

Jordan has said he’s suing NASCAR on behalf of all the teams so that even the smallest ones can receive equal footing in terms of benefits as a participant in the top motorsports league in the United States.

Among the improvements in the 2025 charters is a more equitable revenue share, but missing is the demand that teams wanted the charters to become permanent. NASCAR at its discretion can claw back charters from underperforming teams or eliminate the system completely. Yates said NASCAR has no intention of renegotiating the charters signed in September by 13 organizations, nor did he see a scenario in which NASCAR settles the lawsuit.

“Polk and 23XI’s other owners openly professed that they wanted to change NASCAR’s economic model by demanding more money for the teams from NASCAR media revenues, instead of teams competing against each other,” Yates said. “However, 23XI and FRM did not merely reject the terms of the 2025 Charters. Rather, those teams embarked on a strategy to threaten, coerce, and extort NASCAR into meeting their demands for better contract and financial terms.”

Continue Reading

Trending